MORE THAN
ONCE
IN A BLUE
MOON:
MULTIPLE JOBHOLDI
BY AMERICAN ARTISTS
Research Division Report #40
Neil O. Alper
and Gregory H. Wassail
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
Boston Library Consortium Member Libraries
http://archive.org/details/morethanonceinblOOalpe
MORE THAN
ONCE
IN A BLUE
MOON:
MULTIPLE JOBHOLDINGS BY AMERICAN ARTISTS
MORE THAN
ONCE
IN A BLUE
MOON:
MULTIPLE JOBHOLDINGS BY AMERICAN ARTISTS
Neil O. Alper
and Gregory H. Wassail
Research Division Report #40
National Endowment for the Arts
Seven Locks Press
Santa Ana, California
More Than Once in a Blue Moon: Multiple Johholdings by American Artists is Report #40 in a
series on matters of interest to the arts community commissioned by the Research Division of the
National Endowment of the Arts.
First printed in 2000
/ .ibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
is available from the publisher
ISBN 0-929765-85-0
Printed in the United States of America
Seven Locks Press
Santa Ana, California
800-354-5348
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. I xecutive Summary I
Chapter 2. Moonlighting in American labor Markets I I
Chapter 3. Moonlighting by American Artists 31
Chapter 4. Moonlighting by Artists in Other Countries 89
Chapter 5. ( onclusions and Policy Implications 95
Bibliography 101
Appendix 105
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
Webster's New World Dictionary defines moonlighting as "the practice of
holding a second regular job in addition to one's main job." Unless otherwise
noted, in this study a moonlighting worker's main, or primary, job is defined as
the one in which he or she works (or usually works) the most hours. 1 It has been
recognized for several decades that artists as a group often hold multiple jobs
throughout their careers, either by moonlighting or by switching among several
short-term jobs. 2 Although the term "moonlighting artist" implies that the artist
job is the primary job, artistic jobs can also be, and often are, held as second
jobs. Several labor market studies of artists have noted and documented their
multiple jobholding behavior.' This monograph, however, represents the first
systematic study of multiple jobholding by artists.
To place the practice of moonlighting by artists in proper context it is useful
to understand ( 1 ) why workers in general moonlight, (2) whether artists moon-
light for the same reasons, and (3) whether artists in other countries, often
working under vastly different support systems, engage in moonlighting prac-
tices similar to American artists. As a consequence, this survey is broadened to
incorporate a general discussion of moonlighting in the American labor force,
and to the extent that information is available, multiple jobholding practices of
artists in other countries are also investigated.
Moonlighting in the American Labor Force
A great deal is known about moonlighting in the American labor force,
thanks to researchers, using the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) and
longitudinal databases such as the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. However,
virtually all these studies have concentrated on issues relating to moonlighting
across the entire labor force. Some general findings from these sources are
summarized below:
Moonlighting by Gender and Ethnicity
Over the 1970-97 period, the moonlighting rate of all workers has varied
from 4.5 percent to 6.2 percent, with rates equal to or greater than 6 percent
1. This is the definition employed in the Current Population Survey, for example.
2. The first study to document moonlighting activities among artists in a quantitative manner was
Ruttenberg, Friedman, Kilgallon, Gutchess and Associates (1978). This study focused only on performing
artists who belonged to unions.
3. See for example the discussion of multiple jobholding among artists in Wassail, Alper and Davison (1983),
and among authors in Kingston and Cole (1986).
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
throughout most of the 1990s. 4 In the 1970s, the moonlighting rate of men aver-
aged roughly twice that of women, but this gap has narrowed over time. Since
1994, the moonlighting rates of men and women have become essentially equal. In
fact, it has been the increase in moonlighting by women that has driven the over-
all rate upward over this period while moonlighting by men has remained at
roughly the same level throughout. Over the same period, the moonlighting rates
of whites have consistently been greater than that of blacks and Hispanics.
Moonlighting and the Economy
Moonlighting appears to be pro-cyclical. Although no statistical test of this
hypothesis was conducted, a casual observation of moonlighting and unemploy-
ment rates suggests that they are inversely correlated. In other words, moonlighting
is more common when unemployment is low and the economy is strong.
Moonlighting by Age, Educational Attainment, and Marital Status
Differences in moonlighting rates are also associated with differences in cer-
tain other characteristics of workers. Moonlighting tends first to increase with
age, peaking in the 36-45 year age bracket, and then declining through the rest
of one's working years. Moonlighting also increases at higher levels of educa-
tion. Married men moonlight more often than those never married and formerly
married men. However, married women moonlight less often than formerly
married women, who in turn moonlight less often than never married women.
Moonlighting Among Occupations
When examining moonlighting among occupations, it is important to under-
stand that this behavior can be analyzed in two ways. First, one can focus on
the occupation of the primary job, in which case moonlighting is defined by
those in the primary occupation working in any second job. Second, one can
examine the same occupation when held as the second or moonlighting job.
Here, the primary jobs held by such workers can be in any occupation.
For example, in 1995 the occupation with the highest percentage of its work-
ers holding any second job was firefighters, with a moonlighting rate of 28.1
percent. In that year there were 24 primary occupations in which workers had
moonlighting rates in excess of 10 percent; of those, 4 were artist occupations.
In contrast, the occupation that was most frequently held as a second job was
musicians and composers; 39.0 percent of all persons working this occupation
4. These rates refer to the percentage of persons in the labor force holding two or more jobs in a given week.
Over the course of a year, the percentage of workers who moonlight at any time during the year is higher; one
study (Paxson and Sicherman, 1996) placed it at roughly three times higher.
Executive Summary
indicated they held it .is a second job. In that year, there were $2 occupations in
which more than 10 percent of all workers in that occupation worked it as a
second job. In 1995, there were }2 occupations with moonlighting rates as a
second job in excess of 10 percent. Of these, 7 were artist occupations/
Hours Per Week Spent Moonlighting
Those workers who held a second job have spent roughly the same number
of hours at that job over the 1970—97 period. The number of hours per week
spent moonlighting has held steady at 13 to 14 throughout the period.
Why Do Workers Moonlight?
Motivations tor moonlighting can be complex, and the information available
on motivations is limited. Although the Current Population Survey has asked
workers why they moonlight (but only at selected times between 1974 and
1991), the choices it ottered respondents were narrow; essentially most repre-
sented variations on financial motives. Or these, the one most often selected
(other than "other") was to pay tor regular household expenses.
Economic theory approaches the issue of moonlighting as a problem of con-
strained hours at the first job. If a worker needs more earnings, why not simply
work more hours on the first job? Job market and contractual constraints may
limit the hours a person can work on a principal job; hence the need for a sec-
ond job. This theory has been verified in empirical studies. However, some of
these studies have uncovered other motives for moonlighting. Among them are
( 1 ) working two jobs in which complementary skills are required, (2) reducing
risks of unemployment and low earnings by working in two unrelated occupa-
tions, and (3) working a second job to gain skills and contacts unavailable in
one's first job. These studies have also reported that taking a second job
becomes more likely with (1) lower wages on the first job, (2) higher wages on
the second job, (3) younger workers, (4) more educated workers, and (5) less
hours worked by one's spouse.
Moonlighting Among American Artists
In many ways, artists are unusual members of the labor force. Since
"unusual" is a relative term, it is important to cite a frame of reference.
Although all workers represent a possible comparison group to artists, all pro-
fessional workers other than artists are compared instead. This group is
typically referred to as other professionals throughout the narrative. The eleven
5. While the Census recognizes over 500 "three digit" occupational categories, there are only 11 Census occu-
pations regularly included by the National Endowment for the Arts in their Research Reports.
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
artist occupations are found within the Census professional workers occupa-
tional group. Artists' personal characteristics, in particular their average
educational attainment, more closely resemble those of other professionals than
other occupational groups. However, artists tend to experience labor market
outcomes more adverse than those of most other professionals. Over the past
several decades artists have experienced unemployment rates roughly twice
those of other professionals and have had annual earnings ranging from 77 to
88 percent of the average earnings of other professionals/
Similarly, artists have higher rates of multiple jobholding than do persons in
the overall workforce, higher than even those of other professionals." However,
unlike higher unemployment and lower earnings, higher rates of moonlighting
in an occupation are economically ambiguous; one also needs to look at the rea-
sons stated for taking a second job before concluding that that choice is made
out of financial distress. Thus one has to examine carefully the evidence on
moonlighting by artists to determine whether this practice reflects distress,
opportunity, or a mix of factors.
The information on moonlighting by artists presented in this report was
extracted from monthly Current Population Survey data files. For selected years
between 1970 and 1991, the CPS queried all workers about moonlighting prac-
tices only in its May survey. Since 1994, most questions about moonlighting
practices have been asked every month. Also, between 1970 and 1997 artists
ranged between one and two percent of the labor force. Thus for the years 1970
to 1991, this small sample of working artists reporting their moonlighting
behavior (or lack thereof) led to the aggregation of the eleven Census artist
occupations into four occupational groups in order to gain increased sample
reliability. These aggregated occupational groups are (1) architects and design-
ers (both original Census artist occupational categories), (2) performing artists
(musicians and composers, actors and directors, dancers, and announcers), (3)
visual artists (painters, sculptors, craft artists and artist printmakers, and pho-
tographers), and (4) other artists (authors, college and university teachers of art,
drama, and music, and artists not elsewhere classified). For consistency of
reporting, these classifications are continued for 1994 and beyond, even though
the sample size has increased for these years.
6. For more detail, see Wassail and Alper (1999).
7. Recall that a "multiple jobholding artist" is one who is an artist in his or her primary job.
Executive Summary
Artist Moonlighting Rates
\s noted, artists moonlight more frequently than all workers in the labor
force. The) also moonlight more frequently than other professional workers.
Rates of moonlighting by all artists ranged horn 7 to 14 percent between 1970
and 1997. In even year, they exceeded the moonlighting rates of other profes-
sionals; over the period they averaged 40 percent (about 3 percentage points)
higher. Other professional moonlighting rates exceeded those of all workers in
every year as well.
Within the artist occupation groupings, sonic consistent distinctions can be
observed. The highest rates of multiple jobholding were experienced by per-
forming artists and by other artists, each peaking at just below 20 percent in
some years. In most years, visual artists experienced lower rates of multiple job-
holding, and architects and designers still lower rates.
Artist Moonlighting by Gender and Race
An examination of moonlighting by gender and race shows patterns that are
not quite the same as those of other professionals or of the entire labor force.
In virtually all years, both men and women artists moonlighted more frequently
than their other professional counterparts. However, while moonlighting by
other professional women rose gradually throughout the 1970-97 period (as it
did for all women in the entire labor force), women artists had relatively con-
stant moonlighting rates. Throughout this period, they held second jobs at rates
approximating those of men.
Because of small sample sizes, moonlighting rates of whites were compared
only to all other races, called "non-whites." Among artists, the moonlighting
rates of whites were higher in 12 out of 18 years. However, this pattern of
greater multiple jobholding by whites was even more consistent among other
professional workers; whites had higher rates in all but three years. White
artists consistently moonlight more often than white professionals; their rates
were higher in all but two years. Non-white artists had higher moonlighting
rates than non-white professionals in all but six years.
Artist Moonlighting by Age, Educational Attainment, and Marital Status
There was no consistent pattern of moonlighting rates among artists when
broken into age groups. Younger artists often had moonlighting rates as high
as, or higher than, older artists. This seems to be consistent with the often-
observed phenomenon of young artists finding it difficult to "make it" in their
chosen careers, and thus needing to fall back on other sources of income. Other
professionals, like all workers, showed moonlighting patterns that first
6 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
increased with age, most frequently up to the 36-45 age bracket, and then
declined across the remaining age brackets.
Artist moonlighting is positively related to greater levels of education. The
most prominent reflection of this trend is that in 15 of 18 survey years, the high-
est rates were observed for artists with over 16 years of education. A similar
pattern holds for other professional workers, but the pattern of increasing
moonlighting rates with increasing education is smoother.
There was little or no pattern to moonlighting by marital status among
artists. Among other professionals, never-married professionals typically held
multiple jobs more frequently, probably reflecting the higher percentage of
women in this occupational group.
Artist Moonlighting by Region
Breaking the country into four regions, it was found that artist moonlighting
rates are highest in the west and mid-west. The highest moonlighting rates for
other professional workers usually occurred in the west.
Characteristics of the Second Job
There were greater differences in hours worked on the first job between
artists and other professionals than in hours worked on the second job. Other
professionals averaged almost 38 hours a week in their first job, over 4 hours a
week more than artists. The time spent by moonlighters on the second job was
virtually the same for both groups, averaging just over 12 hours.
The most common type of second job held by artists was a job in the profes-
sional and technical occupations, including that of artist. Between 1970 and 1997,
between 55 and 75 percent of artists with second jobs held them in these occupa-
tions. However, since 1985, the number of moonlighting artists holding a second
job as an artist fell from about three in five to one in three. Over the same time
interval, the number of moonlighting artists holding second jobs in the professional
and technical field other than artist rose from about one in ten to one in three.
Despite the often-cited stereotype, just under 20 percent of moonlighting artists
(one in five) held second jobs in sales, clerical, or service occupations.
Moonlighting Artists Versus Non-Moonlighting Artists
In any given week, the majority of artists do not moonlight. The differences
between artists who moonlight and artists who do not are the same as those
that have shown up in studies of moonlighting in the entire work force. Artists
who moonlight tend to be younger, better educated, more likely to be men, and
more likely to be white. Although artists without a second job worked three
Executive Summary
hours per week more in their primary job, the total weekly hours worked (first
plus second job) of moonlighting artists were nine hours greater.
Artist Occupations as Second Jobs
The artist occupations are also common choices as second jobs for those with
primary jobs in other occupations. Among the tour artist occupational group-
ings, performing artist was the most common choice for a second job, followed
by other artist, visual artist, and architect/designer in that order. Moonlighting
workers who were artists in their second jobs were older, better educated, more
likely to be men and more likely to be non-white than moonlighters who were
artists in their first jobs. Moonlighters who worked as artists in their second
jobs worked four hours a week more in their first job but worked over an hour
per week less in their second (artist) job than moonlighters who worked as
artists in their first jobs.
Reasons for Moonlighting
When asked by the CPS why they moonlight, artists most frequently indi-
cated that they did so to meet regular household expenses. Although this also
was the most frequently cited reason by other professionals, they cited it less fre-
quently. Meeting household expenses is consistent with the constrained hours
theory of multiple jobholding: the need to take on a second job, instead of
working more hours at one's primary job, to make ends meet. Among artist
occupational groups, this reason was checked least often by architects and
designers — occupations which more closely resemble the "traditional" profes-
sional occupations than other artist occupations.
Enjoying the work on the second job was the reason given second most often
by artists for moonlighting. This reason was also the second choice of other pro-
fessionals, and was chosen as frequently by them. The artists" third choice was
the desire to obtain a different experience; for other professionals the third
choice was "other."
When non-artists work as artists in a second job, the relative frequency with
which they offered the above reasons for moonlighting were significantly
altered. Compared to moonlighters working as artists in their main job, persons
working as artists in a second job more often cited enjoying the work and
obtaining a different experience, and less often cited the need to meet regular
household expenses, as reasons for moonlighting.
8 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Information on Moonlighting from Surveys of Artists
Besides the CPS, one-time surveys of artists reveal additional information
about multiple jobholding practices. These surveys have often asked artists
whether they held any jobs other than their primary artist job at any time dur-
ing the course of a year, but not whether they held two or more jobs in the same
week. The reported annual rates of multiple jobholding in these surveys natu-
rally will exceed the rates of moonlighting in a given week reported by the CPS.
Another difference found in these studies is self-selection; virtually everyone
surveyed self-identifies (and is classified) as an artist, even if more time is spent
working in a non-artistic occupation. However, these studies permit the explo-
ration of other issues, such as the amount of time spent in different jobs
throughout the year, the earnings derived from different jobs, and in some cases,
more detail about the nature of the second jobs and why they were chosen.
The most thorough explanation of these issues can be found in Wassail, et al
(1983). In that study of over 3,000 New England artists, the authors found that
only 24 percent of the artists surveyed reported that they worked only in their
artist jobs during 1 98 1 . s Other studies have revealed similar statistics. For
example, Ruttenberg, Friedman, Kilgallon, and Associates (1981 ) found that 61
percent of performing artists held jobs in 1976 not in their primary profession. v
Also, Kingston and Cole (1986), in their survey of authors, found that 70 per-
cent had earnings from work outside their profession. In addition, Netzer and
Parker (1993) reported that 80 percent of choreographers surveyed in their
study held second (or additional) jobs in 1989. 10
Wassail et al also reported on weeks worked in and earnings from all three
types of job. In 1981, New England artists worked 36.1 weeks as artists, 17.3
weeks in arts-related jobs, and 1 1.8 weeks in non-arts-related jobs. These num-
bers exceed 52 because much of the time spent in these jobs involves true
moonlighting — working in two or more jobs at the same time. Artists' earnings
in 1981 were distributed in the following manner: 41.0 percent from arts work,
30.3 percent from arts-related work, and 18.7 percent from non-arts-related
work." Both the Census and the monthly CPS attribute all earnings to the pri-
mary occupation, and thus reveal nothing about the sources of earnings of
X. Other jobs were defined as "arts-related" 1 or "non-arts-rclated." Among the arts-related occupations were
teaching in one's art which, at the college level, is defined by the Census as an artistic job.
9. This survey was limited to performing artists who were members of a performing arts union.
10. All these studies measured the number of second jobs held throughout the survey year, rather than in a
reference week, as the CPS does.
1 1. Similar results were found in a follow-up study of artists in Rhode Island. See Alper and Galligan (1999).
Executive Summary
multiple jobholders. The artist survey evidence suggests that this Census proce-
dure gives an incomplete picture of how artists earn a living.
These surveys often ask artists about reasons tor taking a second job. In the
1^81 New England survey, "better pay" was the most frequent response, fol-
lowed by, in descending order, "better job security," "not enough artistic
work/' and "complements artistic work." In the 1976 survey of performing
artists, "not enough work as a performing artist" was the most frequent
response, followed by "complements your work as a performing artist," and
then "greater job security."
Given the evidence from the CPS and from direct surveys, artists' moon-
lighting behavior, though complex, can be summarized as follows. Those who
work as artists in their primary jobs utilize the second job as a source of extra
income, particular!) during the intervals, which occur most frequently in the
performing arts, when little art work may be available. Because sporadic
employment opportunities are a common phenomenon in the arts, the end result
is higher moonlighting rates for artists than in most other professions. Those who
work as artists in their second jobs are more likely to be either trying out the artis-
tic job as a new profession, or recognizing that their art job cannot provide
sufficient earnings to support them. Second job artists are less likely to hold their
art job because of hours or income constraints on their first job.
Multiple Jobholding by Artists in Other Countries
Since there are differences in government attitudes toward artists and differ-
ences in the openness of labor markets across countries, it is interesting to see
whether moonlighting is a common practice of artists everywhere. It is espe-
cially interesting to compare the labor market experiences of American artists
to those of artists in countries where there are explicit policies of financial sup-
port for working artists.
In some countries, data exist which enable such comparisons. However, these
data are not completely comparable across countries. Also, they were collected
through direct surveys of artists, and report on multiple-jobholding over a period
of time (typically a year) rather than on moonlighting during one week. The most
surprising finding gleaned from a review of these studies is that multiple-jobhold-
ing by artists occurs at roughly the same rates in all of these countries.
For example, evidence from Finland, a country with strong government sup-
port for artists, shows rates of multiple-jobholding comparable to those in the
United States. One survey noted that only 21 percent of fine artists held no
other job outside their occupation, though levels of multiple-jobholding among
performing artists were lower (Karhunen, 1998). A survey of Dutch visual
1 o I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
artists reported that more than one-third of their earnings came from teaching
and more than one-quarter of their earnings came from non-arts work
(Rengers, 1998). The Netherlands government also provides extensive support
for artists.
In a similar survey, 20 percent of Canadian visual artists reported working in
some type of job outside their occupation (Bradley, 1978), as did 63 percent of
writers in another Canadian survey (Harrison, 1982). Several surveys in
Australia have turned up comparable results. For example, Throsby and
Thompson (1995) found that in 1988 almost three-quarters of artists held some
other job in addition to their artistic work. A 1994-95 survey of British visual
artists found that only 11 percent earned all their income from working as
artists. Although these three countries have economic systems more like the
United States, their governments also support individual artists more exten-
sively than the United States.
Given the United States' history of minimal government support for working
artists, one would expect that an explicit policy to limit the need for multiple
jobholding would be very low on any political agenda. The presence of similar
multiple jobholding rates in countries which administer programs of financial
support for artists suggests that such traditional public support, whatever it
accomplishes, does little to reduce artists' choices to hold second jobs. The
unique characteristics of the artist labor market make it very likely that its high
moonlighting rates (as well as its high part-time jobholding rates) will persist in
the future.
CHAPTER 2 MOONLIGHTING IN AMERICAN
LABOR MARKETS
The major objective of this study is to investigate and report on multiple job-
holding by artists. The phenomenon of multiple jobholding, however, is
prevalent in the entire labor market, although at different rates in different
occupations. This chapter reviews and summarizes the state of knowledge
about moonlighting activities in American labor markets.
The research on moonlighting has focused on two broad areas. One involves
measuring the extent of multiple jobholding in the economy, both over time and
across occupations, using large labor market databases. The other involves using
economic models of labor markets to unearth the reasons underlying decisions to
moonlight. A survey of the work in these two areas is presented in this chapter.
There are several dimensions to the issues raised by multiple jobholding.
These can be summarized in the following four paragraphs:
( 1 ) The most basic set of questions can be addressed using descriptive infor-
mation about moonlighting practices. The first question to be addressed with
this information is: How widespread has moonlighting been in the American
work force? This leads to several related questions, such as: Is multiple job-
holding growing over time? Is it concentrated in certain occupations and not in
others? Are there differences in rates of multiple jobholding across gender or
race? Do age, family status, and education affect choices to moonlight? What
reasons do workers themselves give to explain their moonlighting behavior? All
these questions are addressed in this chapter, primarily by citing findings from
the Current Population Survey.
(2) A second set of questions addresses factors affecting decisions to moon-
light in a more rigorous framework. Here the results of economic studies are
examined to gain greater insight into the reasons behind workers' decisions to
hold second jobs. By using multivariate statistical models of moonlighting
behavior, hypotheses relating to the factors affecting moonlighting choices can
be held to tests of statistical significance. These models enable economists to
examine issues such as: Why do workers moonlight? Do financial reasons dom-
inate, or are issues such as the lack of full-time work or inflexibility in hours at
the primary job, important as well? How do wealth, family size and the pres-
ence of a working spouse affect moonlighting choices? What factors affect the
1 2 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
length of time that workers hold second johs? These issues are also discussed in
this chapter.
(3) A third set of questions — the core of this study — addresses multiple job-
holding among artists in the United States. A similar set of questions emerges
regarding the degree and extent of moonlighting and factors affecting the decision
to moonlight. Has the rate of multiple johholding among artists changed over
time? Is it higher than in comparahle professions? What kinds of jobs do artists
hold when they hold more than one? Is moonlighting related to measures of career
success? These questions are addressed in Chapter 3.
(4) A fourth dimension is the comparison of moonlighting practices of artists
across different countries. Do artists in all countries engage in multiple johholding?
Do they engage in unusual amounts of multiple johholding? Is the extent of moon-
lighting related to the amount of external support for artists? Are there other
factors that influence the rate of multiple johholding in other countries not present
in the United States? These issues are addressed in Chapter 4.
Tracking Multiple Jobholding in the United States
To measure and track a complex phenomenon such as multiple johholding
requires a random, comprehensive and regularly updated database of persons in
the labor force. To document multiple jobholding behavior within occupations
such as artists, who constitute less than two percent of all workers, further
requires that the database be large. (An alternative is to conduct direct surveys
of artists that focus on their labor market behavior.) Some of the longitudinal
databases available to social scientists have extensive information on multiple
jobholding of workers. However, given the sample sizes of these databases, it is
generally possible to analyze moonlighting activity only for all occupations
combined. A larger database is required for an examination of moonlighting in
narrowly defined occupations, such as artists.
The necessity for larger sample sizes points researchers to the Decennial
Census and the Current Population Survey (CPS). The Census, unfortunately,
has never asked respondents any questions about multiple jobholding.
However, information about this phenomenon can be found in the CPS.
The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey of about 50,000 randomly
selected households, and is used to provide basic demographic, labor force, and
income information about Americans.' Selected households participate in this
1. For example, the unemployment and labor force statistics released monthly by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics are drawn from information collected by the CPS. The CPS is also the source of annual reports on
the poverty status of Americans and the distribution of income within the country.
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets 13
survey for .1 total of eight months. Although the CPS provides information on sev-
eral hundred attributes and characteristics of persons m the survey, not all
information is collected every month. For example, its frequency of coverage of
multiple jobholding has been inconsistent.
From 19~0 ro 1980 information on multiple jobholding was requested of
households in the CPS only once a year, as part of its May survey. During the 1 980s
and early 1990s, the collection of multiple jobholding information became spo-
radic. Information was collected and released in May 1985 and May 1989, and
again in May 199]. In January 1994 the CPS was redesigned, and information on
multiple jobholding has been collected and released monthly since then. Some
questions on this topic are asked of even- respondent each month; however, a more
detailed set of questions is asked of a quarter-sample each month.' Much of the
information presented in the section below is compiled from various Current
Population Surveys. Virtually all of the information presented in Chapter 3 on the
moonlighting practices of artists comes from the CPS.
Multiple Jobholding in the United States: Some Basic
Information
As noted, most of the information on multiple jobholding presented below is
drawn from the CPS, either from survey articles and releases published occa-
sionally in the Monthly Labor Review, or from the authors' own tabulations
using CPS raw data files. The additional information on moonlighting pre-
sented later in this chapter is drawn from studies which have relied on several
longitudinal surveys of American workers.
Before discussing findings from the CPS it is important to understand how
this survey defines and measures multiple jobholding. Respondents are asked
questions about their work behavior during a reference week, typically the week
prior to the administration of the survey. Those who indicated that they worked
during that week are then asked if they held more than one job. In asking ques-
tions about other jobs held, the survey defines the main job as "the one at which
you usually work the most hours." The second job (or jobs) is referred to as the
"other job." ' The CPS then defines a multiple jobholder as someone who either
had a job as a wage and salary worker with two employers or more, combined
2. More precisely, they participate in the survey for tour consecutive months, are "rotated" out of the survey
for four months, and participate for a final four months period.
3. All respondents are asked if they had more than one job last week. If they answer yes, they are further
asked about the number of jobs they held and the hours worked at each job. A quarter of the sample (the
"outgoing rotation" of survey participants) is asked more detailed questions about the class of worker, indus-
try, and occupation of the second job.
4. The statements inside quotations are taken directly from the survey questionnaire.
14 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
a wage and salary job with self-employment, or combined a wage and salary job
with one as an unpaid family worker during the reference week. Persons with
combinations of two or more self-employment jobs and unpaid family jobs are
not counted as multiple jobholders. 5
As noted, prior to 1994 annual information on multiple jobholding was
found only in the May survey (when available at all). Since 1 994, core questions
about holding extra jobs have been asked monthly, and comparable informa-
tion from the CPS since 1994 reported herein is taken from the twelve-month
sample. This may make the statistics cited for 1994 and subsequent years not
entirely comparable to the "May only" statistics for prior years. On the other
hand, the twelve-month sample is more statistically valid and accurate.
Nevertheless, the CPS provides a consistent summary of how the practice of
moonlighting has evolved between 1970 and 1997.
Trends in Moonlighting: 1970-1997
The most basic piece of information that can be examined from this source is
how rates of multiple jobholding have evolved over this period, and how these
rates vary with personal characteristics. 6 Rates of multiple jobholding between
1970 and 1997 are shown in Chart 2.1. Since 1970, the rate of moonlighting
dropped to a low of 4.5 percent in the mid 1970s, and since then has gradually
risen. In the 1990s it has held steady at over 6 percent. Though a complete annual
time series is lacking, moonlighting rates appear to be pro-cyclical, positively
related to employment rates and inversely related to unemployment rates.
Moonlighting Trends by Gender
Detail is also available on moonlighting by gender, race, age ranges, marital
status and educational attainment. Differences in moonlighting practices by
gender can be seen in Chart 2.2. Over the 1970-97 period, moonlighting by
men remained relatively constant in the 5-7 percent range. Moonlighting by
women, however, rose from just over 2 percent to over 6 percent. Rates of
moonlighting for men and women are now virtually identical. Thus the growth
in the overall rate of moonlighting can be largely attributed to the growth in
holding of multiple jobs by women.
5. For more detail, see Stinson, (1997).
6. The information reported herein on moonlighting rates for all workers men, women, whites and Macks
between 1970 and 1991 is taken from Stinson (1997). The rates between 1994 and 1997 are calculated by
the authors.
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets I 15
Moonlighting Trends by Ethnicity
Over the same period rates ot multiple jobholding by ethnicity can be exam-
ined, as shown m Chart 2.3. Because of small sample sizes, only white versus
black and Hispanic moonlighting rates are reported." Multiple jobholding rates
of Hispanics were not reported in the CPS until 1 977. Over the entire period,
whites have been more likely to hold multiple jobs than blacks or Hispanics.
and since 1989 blacks have been more likely to hold multiple jobs than
Hispanics. Moonlighting rates tor all three ethnic groups are higher in the
1990s than in earlier decades.
Moonlighting Trends by Age Range
Moonlighting rates by age group are presented in Table 2.1 tor the years
1970, 1985, and 1997, years which represent the beginning, midpoint and end
or the CPS time series/ In each year, moonlighting rates tor all workers rise with
age and then decline after the 36-45 age bracket, likely reflecting increasing
security at one's primary job and then, ultimately, the general withdrawal from
labor force activity that occurs with aging past 50. In all years, the rate of
moonlighting starts lower in the 16-25 bracket. However, relative to other
brackets, women moonlight more frequently in the 16-25 bracket, and less fre-
quently in the over 65 bracket. Using data from the 1984 Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP), Conway and kimmel (1992) observe that moon-
lighters in their sample are younger than are other workers.
Moonlighting Trends by Marital Status
Marital status (Table 2.1) has an effect on moonlighting rates as well. The data
show a consistent pattern of gender differences. While never-married women
moonlight more than their married and non-married counterparts, married men
moonlight more than their never- and non-married counterparts. This relationship
is consistent with several well-known labor market behaviors. One is that, despite
labor force advances, the married woman's labor supply may still be considered
secondary to the man's within the household. When income or hours constraints
are met, the man more typically works an extra job. Further, traditional gender
roles when children are present in the household constrain the women's leisure time
(and thus her potential time for moonlighting) more than the man's. In their sam-
ple from the SIPP, however, Conway and Kimmel find that moonlighting men are
more likely to be single than non-moonlighting men.
7. Prior to 1977, data reported by Stinson for blacks included all races other than whites.
8. The information on multiple jobholding by age group and marital status are from Stinson (1986) for 1985.
The 1970 and 1997 statistics are from authors' calculations.
1 6 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Moonlighting Trends by Educational Attainment
Examining moonlighting rates by level of education reveals a gradual
increase in this practice with increasing amounts of education. The only excep-
tion is the lower rates experienced by those with professional degrees. This
exception is probably explained by the typically long hours and high compen-
sation of persons in occupations requiring professional degrees. Both these
factors would work against moonlighting. These findings are again consistent
with data from the SIPP, as reported by Conway and Kimmel. Moonlighters in
the SIPP had almost one more year of education than other workers.
As noted, the moonlighting rates extracted from the CPS are based on work-
ers' behavior during the week prior to the survey. It is likely that some workers
surveyed by the CPS might not hold a second job at the time of survey, but may
do so at some other time during a calendar year. Much higher rates of multiple
jobholding during an entire year are reported using annual data. For example,
Paxson and Sicherman (1996), using data from the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics (PSID), report that in the years 1976 to 1989, multiple jobholding
rates for men averaged 21.1 percent; for women the average was 12.2 percent.''
This suggests that workers do move in and out of second jobs over the course
of a given year.
Moonlighting Frequencies Among Occupations
It has been demonstrated that the rate of multiple jobholding varies consider-
ably among occupations. Amirault (1997), in an examination of 1995 CPS data,
identifies 24 3-digit primary occupations in which more than ten percent of work-
ers held other jobs, shown in Table 2.2. Heading the list are firefighters with a
moonlighting rate of 28.1 percent. Rounding out the top five are physicians' assis-
tants, announcers, artists not elsewhere classified, and psychologists. Four of the
1 1 artist occupations regularly reported on by the Research Division on the
National Endowment for the Arts appear in the top 24. (Artist occupations appear
in capital letters in this table.) In examining the nature of occupations on this list,
Amirault observes that moonlighting "is driven more by the opportunities that
highly trained and educated workers have to obtain additional jobs than by a need
for earnings to meet basic living expenses" (p. 11) .
9. Some examples: In 1976 the CPS reported 2.6 percent of women and 5.8 percent of men holding multiple
jobs during the reference week. The PSID, in the same year, reported 1 1.0 percent of women and 22.9 per-
cent of men holding multiple jobs at some time during the year. In 1985 the CPS reported rates of 4.7 percent
for women and 5.9 percent for men; the PSID reported rates of 14.8 percent for women and 20.5 percent for
men. (Paxson and Sicherman, 1996, Table 1, page 360).
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets 17
Amiraulr also identities 32 occupations that more than l() percent of work-
ers held as second jobs (Table 2.3). The highest rate of second jobholding within
an occupation was J9.0 percent tor musicians and composers. Rounding out
the rop five ill this ranking were news vendors, athletes, announcers, and street
and door-to-door salcsworkers. Seven of the eleven artist occupations appear in
this rop M. There is considerable overlap between occupations in this list and
the primary job moonlighting list.
Evidence also exists on how the frequency of moonlighting is related to
weekly wages. For example, Amirault reports on weekly earnings of moon-
lighters in the primary job. Breaking reported weekly earnings into quintiles, he
finds that increased earnings are associated with lower rates of multiple job-
holding. Less information is available on weekly earnings in the second job.
Paxson and Sicherman ( 1996) report a ratio of mean wage in the second job to
mean wage in the first job of 1 .84 for men and 1.72 for women, based on data
from the PSID between 1976 and 1989. They also report ratios of 1.20 for men
and 1.14 for women using data from the 1991 CPS."' However, they caution
that these figures could be biased because of large amounts of missing observa-
tions in both data sets."
Time Spent in Second Jobs
The CPS also provides information on hours per week spent moonlighting.
Hours devoted to a second job, for those who had second jobs, are reported in
Table 2.4. From 1970 to 1980, median hours are reported; for 1985 and after,
mean hours are reported. These data do not show any growth or decline in
hours worked over this period. However, there are some consistent patterns.
For example, men work more hours in second jobs than women, and blacks and
Hispanics work more hours in second jobs than whites.
Reasons for Moonlighting
Prior to 1994, the CPS asked moonlighters to choose among a menu of rea-
sons why they held second jobs. The responses to this question are also
tabulated in Table 2.3 for selected years starting in 1974. Unfortunately, the
choices allowed in the CPS do not include some of the principal reasons for
moonlighting that show up in other surveys. Respondents were asked to pick
among the following reasons: to meet regular household expenses, to pay off
10. Ratios of median wage on second to first job are lower, roughly 1.0 from the PSID sample and less than
1.0 from the CPS sample.
1 1. Conway and Kimmel (1992, 1995) also have information on wages in the primary and secondary jobs.
However, they define the primary job as the one for which the individual has the highest earnings, potentially
biasing observed wage rates in the primary and secondary jobs.
1 8 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
debts, to save for future contingencies, to gain experience in the second job, and
"other." They were allowed to choose only one reason.
In most years the reason most frequently picked was "other," with the need
to meet regular household expenses ranking mostly second and occasionally
first over the same period. These two reasons were commonly cited three to four
times as much as any other. Ranking third in most years was saving for future
contingencies, followed by gaining experience and paying off debts.
The above discussion summarizes what is known about the frequency of
moonlighting, the nature and characteristics of persons who moonlight, the
occupations in which moonlighting is most prominent, and the reasons individ-
uals gave when asked why they moonlight. One may draw tentative conclusions
from this discussion about some apparent relationships between personal, fam-
ily, or job characteristics and the probability and frequency of holding multiple
jobs. However, the factors affecting moonlighting behavior are often complex
and interrelated. For example, moonlighting rates were shown to increase with
increasing years of education, but more education leads to a higher income in
the primary job, which by itself would predict a lower probability of moon-
lighting. Issues such as these are better sorted out in the context of econometric
analysis of models of moonlighting behavior. A survey of these studies follows.
Why People Moonlight: Theory and Evidence from Empirical
Studies
In this section, the empirical literature on the determinants of moonlighting
behavior is examined. Specifically, the results of econometric studies of moon-
lighting behavior are discussed. All these studies employ some form of
regression analysis, in which the dependent variable reflects some measure of
moonlighting behavior, such as the percentage of the sample that moonlights,
the number of second jobs held during the period of analysis, or the length of
the second job. These studies typically analyze moonlighting using longitudinal
databases. Longitudinal databases often contain more information about char-
acteristics of the first and second jobs than the CPS. For example, since they
cover labor market behavior of persons over a length of time, they may provide
information on the number of moonlighting episodes per year, and the length of
these episodes.
As noted above, a drawback of longitudinal databases is their smaller sam-
ple sizes. Because of this, these studies have largely focused on general issues
that span the entire labor force.
Research in this area evolves from and tests the implications of the basic eco-
nomic model of labor supply found in any labor economics textbook. Standard
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets 19
economic theory of labor-leisure choices predicts that a person determines how-
main hours ro work at the current wage rate based on preferences for more
income versus more leisure. As the wage rate rises, the model does not unam-
biguously predict that a person will work more hours (or less). Offsetting
factors are: (1) a higher wage implies a higher opportunity cost of not working,
so the worker substitutes hours worked for hours spent on leisure activities (the
substitution effect), and (1) a higher wage means a higher income from work-
ing a given number of hours, causing hours worked to fall as the person spends
more time pursuing now affordable leisure activities (the income effect). At any
possible wage rate an equilibrium trade-off between income and leisure can nor-
mally be attained, as long as the worker can choose the number of hours
worked per period of time.
A person's desire to take on a second job depends on whether it is possible to
work enough hours in the primary job to satisfy income-leisure objectives, reach-
ing the equilibrium noted above. If the primary job is hours constrained, a person
cannot reach this equilibrium trade-off and may choose to work additional hours
at a second job. Hours will be worked on a second job as long as its wage rate
exceeds the worker's reservation wage. The reservation wage, in turn, does not
have to be greater than the wage rate on the primary job, but must raise the
worker's level of utility (satisfaction) from working the extra hours.
Because of the offsetting income and substitution effects of labor supply, one
cannot predict whether a worker will work more or less hours in the second job
if the wage in the primary (hours-constrained) job goes up. Similarly, one can-
not make unambiguous predictions about the effect on hours worked in the
second job when the number of constrained hours on the primary job goes up.
The implications of this basic model have been tested on empirical data by
several authors. These empirical studies have generally yielded results consistent
with theory. In one of the earliest empirical papers, Shisko and Rostker (1976),
using information from the Income Dynamics Panel, examined factors affecting
the number of hours worked on the moonlighter's second job. They found that
an increase in the wage rate of the second job, a decrease in the wage rate of the
first job, and a decrease in the number of hours worked on the first job were all
correlated with an increase in hours worked on the second job. All these find-
ings are consistent with the basic theory outlined above. Shisko and Rostker
also find that a larger family size (viewed as a proxy for greater spending needs)
was associated with more hours spent moonlighting, and that hours spent
moonlighting diminish with age.
In addition to hours constraints, moonlighting may be encouraged by liq-
uidity constraints. Abdukadir (1992) investigates this issue using data from
20 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Florida Consumer Surveys. In this model the dependent variable is the decision
to moonlight. Abdukadir finds that moonlighting is positively and significantly
related to age, being a male, increased education and family size, and negatively
and significantly related to family income and being married. He also finds a
significant positive correlation with an individual's plans to buy a car or a
house. He concludes that liquidity constraints (current spending needs in excess
of short and long-run income expectations) also create incentives to moonlight.
However, he lacks information on hours worked and thus can not test for hours
constraints in his model.
Several observations lead to less than full support for the hours-constraint
theory of moonlighting. First, the theoretical models define the primary job as
the one with the higher wage rate. Yet, noted above, there is evidence that this
is not always the case. Second, the vast majority of multiple jobholders have sec-
ond-job occupations that differ from their first job. 12 One would expect that, for
most workers, the most efficient way to moonlight would be to take a second
job in the same occupation utilizing the same general and specific job skills.
These observations lead to a discussion of reasons for holding multiple jobs
other than simply to make up for a lack of income from hours-constrained first
jobs. In general, researchers have focused on three other causes of moonlight-
ing. These other factors can be explained in the context of a job portfolio
theory, "in which workers choose packages of jobs so as to optimize over the
mean and variance of income" (Paxson and Sicherman, p. 361). Types of job
packaging include the following: (1) A limited number of occupations may
require skills or traits which are complementary to those needed in different
occupations. Some examples include the police officer and security guard, musi-
cian and music teacher, and athlete and coach. (2) The primary and secondary
jobs may be linked by risk aversion. In this case, holding multiple jobs could be
seen as a portfolio of earnings opportunities, in which average earnings from all
jobs could be raised while earnings risk is reduced as long as the earnings streams
in each job are uncorrelated with each other. Careers in acting and athletics are
examples of occupations with substantial earnings risk; thus a second job for per-
sons in an unrelated occupation such as taxi driving or construction may smooth
the pattern of earnings over time. (3) A second job may be held because it provides
training, networking or contacts that the first job doesn't provide. An example of
this phenomenon is moonlighting in a sales oriented job.
12. For example, Paxson and Sicherman note that in the 1991 CPS, 83 percent of men and 72 percent of
women who held second jobs held them in different occupations. They also observe that the comparable fig-
ures from the Panel Survey on Income Dynamics between 1984 and 1989 were 78 percent for men and 72
percent for women. Occupations were defined at the two-digit level.
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets 21
Ir should be noted that several of the moonlighting scenarios described above
potentially apply to artists. However, it should be expected that the motives that
lead artists to moonlight are complex, and that no single motive will explain all
moonlighting behavior by artists.
Conway and Kimmel (l c ^2) directly test the hours-constraint hypothesis
against the job-packaging hypothesis. The sample they draw from the SIPP consists
ot working men between the ages of IS and 55. 13 They estimate decision to moon-
light equations and labor supply equations, as measured by weekly hours worked,
tor both the primary and secondary jobs. They find that in their sample most
workers have constrained hours in their primary jobs, and conclude that this is
the primary reason for moonlighting. But they note that their findings also lend
some support for the job heterogeneity hypothesis. Their estimating equations
show that hours supplied on the second job are positively related to its wage,
negatively related to the primary job wage, negatively related to age, and posi-
tively related to the level of education.
Conway and Kimmel ( 1995), using the same database, estimate hazard func-
tions to test for factors affecting the duration of the moonlighting episode.^ In
this model, age, being divorced, and having more children all significantly pre-
dict longer moonlighting episodes. The nature of the occupation of the second
job is also a significant factor; men in farming, sales, service, professional, and
technical occupations moonlight for longer periods. The nature of the primary
job did not affect the duration of moonlighting. Also, the level of education is
not a significant predictor in this model.
It is useful to compare factors affecting the choice to moonlight that are revealed
in the econometric studies cited above to the actual reasons for moonlighting as
given by participants in the Current Population Survey. First, the CPS does not
offer respondents the choice of an "hours constraint" reason for holding a second
job. Second, other than the "experience" option, it does not offer respondents any
choice consistent with the job-packaging hypotheses discussed above. Essentially,
the CPS limits choices to financial reasons for moonlighting. It is no surprise that
the "other" option is most frequently picked by respondents.
Another extension of the theory of moonlighting applies it to married couple
households (Krishnan, 1990; Highfill, Felder and Sattler, 1995). Economic the-
ory posits that the household is the decision-making unit, so the choice of one
13. Within this group, men between ages 18 and 25 were excluded, as were men who were self-employed or
in the military. In addition, they defined the primary job as the one that had the highest earnings per episode
or the most hours worked per week.
14. Specifically, the hazard function shows the probability that a moonlighting episode will end any period t,
given that it has lasted t periods already.
22 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
spouse to moonlight is to some extent a substitute for the choice of the other
spouse to work, or work more hours, or to moonlight as well.
For example, Krishnan (1990) identified 219 moonlighting men in the sam-
ple of 4,448 married couples in the Survey of Income and Program Participation
in 1984, a moonlighting rate of 4.9 percent. IS He estimates moonlighting par-
ticipation functions for the entire sample of married men, and labor supply
functions for the moonlighters' second jobs. He finds that increased labor force
participation by wives deters moonlighting by husbands (although the wife's
wage has no significant effect on hours spent on the second job). He also finds
that longer hours and higher income on the first job deter moonlighting as well
(as have others, noted above). These findings are consistent with that part of
standard labor supply theory that regards the primary cause of moonlighting to
be an hours constraint on the primary job.
Unlike other researchers in this vein, Krishnan utilized information deter-
mining the amount of general versus specific training that workers in the sample
received. '* He finds that larger amounts of specific training deter moonlighting
when the second occupation is the same as the first. However, larger amounts
of general training increase the likelihood of moonlighting but have no effect on
hours spent moonlighting.
Conclusion
In general, this review of statistical information on the moonlighting behav-
ior of Americans was drawn from general surveys of the entire work force.
Information is most often cited from the Current Population Survey because of
its monthly sampling procedure, its relatively large sample size, and its regular
questions (once a year for selected years from 1970 to 1991, and once a month
since 1994) about moonlighting. However, the CPS does not provide informa-
tion on some important aspects of the multiple jobholding experience. The CPS
does not report on the duration of moonlighting episodes, or the number of
times a year that workers moonlight. To examine these and other more complex
issues, most researchers have mined longitudinal databases, such as the Panel
15. Both Krishnan and Conway and Kimmcl use the 1984 SIPP as the basis of their studies. Each uses a
different methodology to identity the moonlighting men in the sample. Each, however, finds moonlighting
rates 14.9 percent of married men for Krishnan ) that are lower than those found for men in the CPS at
roughly the same time (the closest period in the CPS is May 1985, for which the moonlighting rate for men
was 5.9 percent).
16. General training (an extra year of college, e.g.) raises general productivity and enhances one's worth at
virtually any job. Specific training makes one more productive on one's current job but not others. A com-
puter programmer taking a course to learn C++ would be receiving general training. The same person, when
updating company-specific software, is receiving specific training.
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets 23
Study of Income Dynamics and the Survey of Income and Program
Participation. A drawback of these databases is their smaller sample sizes. The
statistical limitations posed by these smaller sample sizes have forced the focus
of researchers to remain on all occupations combined.
In the next chapter, we examine the moonlighting behavior of artists.
Because artists have constituted from one to two percent of the labor force over
the 1 970— 1 S>9~ period, we are constrained to using the CPS in our analysis.
24
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Table 2.1
Moonlighting Rates by Personal Characteristics, 1970, 1985 and 1997
Characteristic
All
Men
|
Women
1970
1985
1997
1970
1985
1997
1970
1985
1997
Overall
5.2
5.4
6.6
7.0
5.9
6.6
2.2
4.7
6.6
By Age:
16-25
3.3
5.3
6.2
4.3
5.3
5.6
2.2
5.2
7.0
26-35
6.3
5.7
6.5
8.1
6.2
6.7
2.5
5.0
6.3
36-45
6.6
6.2
7.1
9.0
7.1
7.2
2.3
5.2
7.0
46-55
5.3
5.1
7.0
7.3
5.9
7.0
1.9
4.1
7.0
56-65
4.1
3.7
5.6
5.2
4.4
6.0
2.2
2.9
5.1
Over 65
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.9
3.5
3.9
1.8
2.7
2.9
By Marital Status:
Married
5.9
5.3
6.4
7.8
6.2
6.9
1.8
3.8
5.8
Never Married
3.3
5.5
7.4
4.0
5.2
6.6
2.6
6.0
7.9
Widowed/divorced/separated
3.5
5.5
6.5
4.7
5.6
5.9
3.0
5.4
7.3
By Education:
Less than high school
3.2
3.1
3.4
High school graduate
5.4
5.5
5.2
Some college
7.6
7.7
7.6
Associate's degree
8.6
9.0
8.3
Bachelor's degree
8.0
8.1
7.9
Master's degree
9.0
8.8
9.2
Professional degree
7.1
7.5
6.2
Doctorate degree
10.2
10.2
10.3
Sources: Stinson (1986); Authors' calculations for 1970 and 1997.
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets 25
Table 2.2
Primary Occupations with Moonlighting Rates of
10 Percent or More, 1995
Primary Occupation % with 2nd Job
Firefighters 28.1%
Physicians assistants 23.4
ANNOUNCERS 19.3
ARTISTS AND RELATED WORKERS, N.E.C. 16.0
Psychologists 15.6
Therapists 14.5
Dental hygienists 14.4
Teachers, college and university 14.1
Teachers, secondary school 13.3
MUSICIANS AND COMPOSERS 13.0
News vendors 12.3
ACTORS AND DIRECTORS 1 1 .8
Teachers, n.e.c. 1 1.7
Supervisors, police and detectives 11.7
Hotel clerks 11.4
Administrators protective services 10.9
Police and detectives 10.8
Dietitians 10.8
Bartenders 10.6
Veterinarians 10.2
Editors and reporters 10.0
Managers, service organizations, n.e.c. 10.0
Social, recreation, religious workers 10.0
Pharmacists 10.0
Source: Thomas Amirault, "Characteristics of multiple jobholders, 1995," Monthly Labor Review,
March, 1997, 9-15. Artist occupations are in Capital Letters.
26 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Table 2.3
Secondary Occupations with Moonlighting Rates of
10 Percent or More, 1995
Secondary Occupation % with 2nd Job
MUSICIANS AND COMPOSERS 39.0%
News vendors 35.0
Athletes 34.4
ANNOUNCERS 33.6
Street and door-to-door sales workers 32.3
Teachers, n.e.c. 23.3
ARTISTS, PERFORMERS, AND RELATED WORKERS, N.E.C. 22.8
Bartenders 22.0
Farm operators and managers 20.8
AUTHORS 19.9
Small engine repairers 17.0
Psychologists 16.7
Religious workers, n.e.c. 15.9
PHOTOGRAPHERS 15.6
Teachers, college and university 1 5. 1
Clergy 14.3
Demonstrators, promoters and models, sales 14.2
Guides 14.0
Manager, properties and real estate 13.4
Management analysts 12.7
Guards 12.7
Attendants, amusement and recreation facilities 1 1.9
Sales workers, retail and personal services 1 1.9
Janitors and cleaners 11.7
Editors and reporters 11.4
ACTORS AND DIRECTORS 1 1 .3
Animal caretakers, except farm 1 1 .0
Waiters and waitresses 10.8
Physicians assistants 10.6
Therapists 10.4
PAINTERS, SCULPTORS, CRAFT-ARTISTS, ETC. 10.4
Bus Drivers 10.4
Source: Thomas Amirault, "Characteristics of multiple jobholders, 1995," Monthly Labor Review,
March, 1997, 9-15. Artist occupations are in capital letters.
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets
27
CD
"0 2
IT _
■a
a
3
O
(S
Q
3)
* O.
p. to
S. IT
*>. CO O -t> CO
o> co — *>■ co
*» co -» *. CO
O -» *■ CO
o> CO
o
c
<0
en
en
C
tD
5°
Co
Q-
CO
C
l
o
9L
O
c_
21
o
3
*»
Ol
IO
-■
■&■
00
*.
CO
CO
CO
*»
C7>
to
to
*>.
GO
CO
CO
CD
o
to
NO
CJi
Ol
to
to
CO
0j
to
00
~J
o
CD
o
CD CJI IO tO
CO 4^ 03 O
*>• CO
b ->
ft P>
--0
CO
b
to -* -»
(O vl W
io b b
•-
XI
IB
(D
T
Ol
U>
_
o
i
3
tfl
c/i
c
^,
B
■T
rr
M
o
■T
ti
co
VI
8
o
3
Q.
O
o-
CD O) ^
Ol u ^
CO Ol £
O O rr,
CO P 1 P° V O
• , o> co ^ ~
O) CO Ol U
A IO CO ^
§ P° <° <» O
n Ol (H S V
CO ^
" b
o
0)
(t)
(Q
o
•2
a? _
10
■■a
CD
•si
to
CD
CO
CO
"J
■0.
CO
cn
10
-i
09
CD
co
00
co
CO
CO
CD
O
CD
CD
Ol
0)
to
*.
CD
oo
CO
Ol
CD
(30
CO
09
-0
to
CO
Ol
to
b
CD
CO
CD
b
CD
CO
b
CD
CO
CD
CD
*>
CD
CO
Ol
CO
CO
09
CO
CO
-0
73
CO
0)
</>
o
3
o
a
—
3
(Q
(/>
(0
O
o
3
a
o
a
a cr
X ®
O IO
(0
I
■I
7?
CD
a
0)
CD
O
o
o
17)
o
I
-J
28
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
o
b
o
S>J
o
-sj
so
-si
-sj
fjj
sO
sO
sQ
Os
>0
sj
-sj
sO
-sj
CO
sO
sO
sO
CD
O
SO
CD
sO
CD
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
sO
■sj
sO
sO
CD
I I I I
1 I 1 I
ii Ti i i ii iniii i iin ii iiiinii i n iiiiiiiiiiii n iiiii r 1 1 n i ii V i iiiiii \
I I I I
Percent
ro
to *•
Ln
Os
sj
O
o o
O
O
O
iW<V«Vti«SA(y*A*rtSiSA l V*Sft«wywWW
Iftltlf 1 *^*11* ** t )*M*Aif ,ma * mmmmm 1 mmmm ' k ** M ' u ^ M1kfi*hf^ m *****' v * JVJ ** MMiJvvt * t *' f ' f ^
a>
o
IX
O
f?
<■*■ -a
</)
o
Moonlighting in American Labor Markets
29
Percent
O
■vj
01
o
<i
■vj
CO
CD
O
00
CO
O
■U
S3
-O
O
-*4
o
CD
> E
^
■D
o
CD
-^
7T
o"
C7
O
(D
— r
3
0)
i/>
J
O
a.
<
a.
hO
3
N3
3
71
o.
ft)
rt)
r+
■I
CD
30
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
CHAPTER 3 MOONLIGHTING BY AMERICAN
ARTISTS
Introduction
In this chapter several aspects of artists' multiple jobholding behavior for the
period L970 to l c >9~ are examined. First to be examined will be trends in mul-
tiple jobholding rates, i.e., the percentage of people who have indicated that
their primary occupation is that of artist hut who also indicated that they
worked at a second job during the CPS survey week.' There will be a compari-
son of those artists with second jobs to a comparable group of multiple
jobholding professional workers (excluding artists, who are also classified as
professional workers by the Census and CPS). This will be followed by a com-
parison of the artists who were multiple jobholders to artists who indicated that
they only worked at one arts job. For two somewhat shorter periods, due to
changes in the CPS during this twenty-seven year period, there will be an exam-
ination of the reasons given by artists to explain why they held multiple jobs
(1974-1991). There will also be an examination of the characteristics of those
people whose primary occupations were non-artistic, but who indicated that
they also held artistic second jobs (1985, 1989, 1991, and 1994 through 1997).
Finally, there is an examination of the characteristics of the second jobs held by
multiple jobholding artists, and an examination of who the multiple jobholding
artists are and where they live.
As discussed in the previous chapter, during the period 1970 to 1980 and irreg-
ularly through 1991 (1985, 1989, and 1991), information regarding the multiple
jobholding behavior of artists, and for that matter all workers in the United States,
was obtained through an annual supplement to the May Current Population
Survey. Since 1994 information on multiple jobholding has been obtained monthly
through the CPS. Although the CPS surveys between 50,000 and 60,000 house-
holds nationwide each month, artists have accounted for between one and two
percent of the workforce during the period under study (Alper and Wassail, 1996).
This means that the information on the multiple jobholding behavior of artists
must be viewed carefully. The estimated averages and percentages reported in the
narrative (and in the accompanying charts and tables) have larger statistical errors
than do estimates for the entire labor force. The uncertainty of the estimates
1. The CPS is undertaken monthly during the calendar week that includes the 12th day of the month.
32 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
becomes increasingly severe as the artists are disaggregated into various groups.
The larger the number of groups that are used, the smaller the number of artists
there will be in each group, and the less reliable are the estimates. For this reason
we have limited the amount of disaggregation.
The CPS-defined artists are combined into four groups based on their pri-
mary occupations, rather than the eleven Census groups generally used in
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) research reports. Architects and
designers are combined into one group. (As noted earlier, the job market for this
group most closely resembles that for other professionals.) The Census' musi-
cians and composers, actors and directors, dancers, and announcers categories
are combined into a single and relatively homogeneous group of performing
artists. The visual artists group is also relatively homogeneous, and combines
the Census painters, sculptors, craft-artists, and artist print-makers category
with the photographers category. The fourth group is a catchall group called
"other artists." It includes the Census categories of authors, postsecondary
school art, drama and music teachers, and artists, performers, and related
workers not elsewhere classified. College teachers of art, drama, and music
often (though not always) perform or create art as part of their academic work.
In other respects they resemble their academic peers, with high educational
requirements and a less-than-twelve-month-work year. Artists not elsewhere
classified is particularly diverse, encompassing occupations such as calf roper,
astrologer, juggler, and clown.
Note that the racial breakdown has been limited to two groups (whites and
others), also due to sample size constraints. Further, the geographical break-
down is limited to four regions (northeast, midwest, south and west), and
information on the occupation of the second job to four broad groups (profes-
sional, managerial and technical workers; artists; sales, clerical and service
workers; and other).
The last section of the chapter will explore the multiple jobholding behavior
of artists in the United States utilizing surveys that were specially designed for
the uniqueness of their experiences. These surveys will be used to confirm the
behavior identified by the CPS and to explore questions that cannot be
answered by the CPS. Their strength can be found in the recognition that artists'
work behavior is, in many ways, unique and cannot readily be captured by
national surveys such as the CPS or the Decennial Census. Their weakness is
that the information they collect may not be truly representative of all the artists
in the country.
Moonlighting by American Artists I 33
Trends in Multiple Jobholding Rates: All Artists
Throughout this twenty-seven year period, artists were more likely to be
multiple jobholders than their peers in other professional occupations (Chart
3. 1 ). : The moonlighting rates for all artists, which ranged from just under eight
percent to almost Fourteen percent during this period, averaged almost 40 per-
cent higher than the rate tor professional workers. This difference between
artists' moonlighting rates and those for professionals ranged from 3 percent to
88 percent.
By Gender
There does not appear to be a readily discernable pattern in the multiple job-
holding rates of male and female artists (Chart 3.2). In half the years the rate
for men exceeds the rate for women; in the other years the opposite is true. The
male artists' multiple jobholding rates range from 8.3 percent to 15.4 percent.
The female rates range from 5.8 percent to 13.8 percent. Among professional
workers there is a clear pattern of male multiple jobholding rates exceeding
female rates throughout this period. In comparison to their professional peers,
female artists were consistently more likely to hold a second job. This was true
throughout the twenty-seven year period (Chart 3.3). The same cannot be said
for the male artists relative to their professional peers. Though in the majority
of the years (13 of 18) male artists' multiple jobholding rates were higher than
the rates for the other professional males, the differences were not as large as
the differences in female rates (Chart 3.4).
By Race
In most years the multiple jobholding rate for white artists was higher than
the rate for non-white artists (Chart 3.5). The white artists' multiple jobholding
rates ranged from slightly more than seven percent in 1971 to 14.0 percent in
1977. The non-white artists' rates ranged from just under four percent in 1980
to more than 15 percent in 1985. The same pattern held for professional work-
ers. In all the years, except for 1978, the white artists' multiple jobholding rates
were higher than the white professionals' rates (Chart 3.6). The pattern was
much less consistent for non-white artists compared to non-white professionals.
In one-third of the survey years, non-white professionals were more likely to be
multiple jobholders than non-white artists (Chart 3.7). A similar, though not
quite as consistent, pattern exists when comparing non-Hispanic artists' and
2. The information in the charts in this chapter, and in the appendix, are based on authors' calculations using
data in raw CPS files. The tables from which these charts are constructed, as well as additional data extracted
from the CPS files, are available from the authors by request.
34 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
professionals' multiple jobholding with Hispanic artists and professionals. In
general the rates are higher for the non-Hispanics than the Hispanics, but this
is less true for the professional workers than it is for the artists.
By Age Groups
There does not appear to be any pattern with regard to the artist's age and the
likelihood of multiple jobholding (Chart 3.8). When grouped into 10 year age
cohorts, the only pattern that seems to hold across most years is that the artists in
the oldest category, those more than 65 years old, tend to have the lowest multiple
jobholding rate of all artists. For non-artist professionals the relationship between
age and the likelihood of holding a second job follows an inverted 'IT shape for
most of the twenty-seven year period. That is, multiple jobholding rates initially
increase with age and then decrease. The pattern changed somewhere in the early
1990s; for each year starting in 1994 the youngest cohort of non-artist profession-
als had the highest multiple jobholding rates.
For most years in the twenty-seven year period, the multiple jobholding rate
for artists tended to increase with the amount of schooling they received (Chart
3.9). That is, artists with more schooling were more likely to have a second job
than artists with less formal schooling. In the early 1970s the pattern was not
as clear, but even during those years (1970-1974) artists with the most school-
ing, more than 16 years of formal education, tended to have the highest multiple
jobholding rates among the artists. A very similar pattern also exists for the
other professionals.
By Region
Over the period, artists' multiple jobholding rates tended to vary based on
the region of the country in which they resided. The highest rates were found
among artists who lived in the mid-west and the west (Chart 3.10). For profes-
sional workers, the highest multiple jobholding rates were almost always found
among the professionals who lived in the west. This was true for all but five
years, with three occurring in the 1994-1997 period.
By Marital Status
The artist's marital status does not appear to consistently affect the likeli-
hood of multiple jobholding. In some years married* artists have the highest
rates, in others it is the widowed, separated, and divorced with the highest, and
in still others it is the never-married (Chart 3.11). For professional workers,
3. From 1970 to 1985 the CPS considered people who were separated hut not legally divorced as married.
Starting in 1989 the CPS included them with those who were widowed and divorced.
Moonlighting by American Artists 1 35
those who indicated that they were never married almost always had the high-
est multiple jobholding rates throughout the 1970—1991 period. During the
I 994-1 L,L) ~ period, widowed, divorced and separated professionals consistently
had the highest multiple jobholding rates.
Trends in Multiple Jobholding Rates: Details for Artists'
Occupations
Although artist multiple jobholding rates are high, there are consistent dif-
ferences among the artistic occupations over the 1970-97 period (Chart 3.12).
Other artists (authors, post-secondary school art teachers, and artists not else-
where classified) had the highest average annual multiple jobholding rate of
14.3 percent. For more than half the years they had the highest rate, and for
almost a third of the years they had the second highest rate of multiple job-
holding. Performing artists had the second highest average rate, 13.4 percent for
the period. In more than sixty percent of the years they had the second highest
rate and in almost one-quarter they had the highest rate. Visual artists ranked
third, with an average rate of 10.0 percent for the period. Architects and design-
ers were by far the least likely to hold second jobs during the period. The
average multiple jobholding rate of 7.1 percent was about half the rate of the
"other artists." The average rate for the architects and designers was compara-
ble to the average moonlighting rate for all other professional workers, which
was 7.7 percent.
A brief reminder is necessary at this point regarding the reliability of esti-
mates because the artists are disaggregated into groups. All the estimates
become subject to greater variability about the mean as the number of groups,
and the size of the groups gets smaller. While this may not seem to be a prob-
lem when examining gender differences, it is important to note that there were
some artistic occupations, like architects, where not that many years ago the
proportion of women or the proportion of non-whites employed in that occu-
pation was very small. For example, in 1970 only four percent of the architects
were women, but by 1995 the proportion had increased to 20 percent female
(Katz, 1996, 17).
A closer examination of multiple jobholding rates by gender reveals some
interesting relationships related to artistic occupation (Appendix Charts A-3.1
to A-3.4). The decade of the 1970s tended to have the largest gender differences
in multiple jobholding rates regardless of artist type. By the 1990s, there was
very little difference between the multiple jobholding rates of male and female
architects and designers, performing and visual artists. The difference in the
36 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
likelihood of holding a second job relative to gender persisted to a greater
degree among the other artists.
The volatility in the estimated multiple jobholding rates, due to the limited
number of non-white artists in the surveys, is quite apparent when examining
racial differences across artistic occupations (Appendix Charts A-3.5 to A-3.8).
With the number of minorities in each occupation increasing over the years, it
is better to focus on the period after 1980. For the entire post-1980 period,
except for 1985, white architects and designers had a greater chance of holding
a second job than their non-white colleagues. In each of the other occupations
the racial group with the higher multiple jobholding rate varied from year to
year.
The age specific multiple jobholding rates for each artistic occupation illus-
trate almost random variation from year to year and from artist group to artist
group (Appendix Charts A-3.9 to 3.12). For example, in 1971 and 1977 two
groups of architects, those aged 16-25 and those aged 36-45, had multiple job-
holding rates that were in excess of 20 percent. This was the highest of any of
the architects' and designers' age cohorts in any other year. In the same years,
the same age cohorts among the visual and other artists groups had some of the
lowest multiple jobholding rates for the entire twenty-seven year period. It is
interesting to note that prior to the mid 1980s it was rare to find any evidence
of moonlighting among the oldest cohort, artists over 65, for each artist group.
During each survey year since 1989 there is evidence of considerable moon-
lighting among the oldest artists. The only exception is visual artists.
Moonlighting Artists Versus Moonlighting Other
Professionals
As already shown above, multiple jobholding rates for artists differ from
multiple jobholding rates for the other workers classified by the United States
Census Bureau as professional and technical workers. This section of the report
will present a comparison of moonlighting artists to moonlighting other pro-
fessionals in order to help explain these differences in their moonlighting rates.
An area where there appears to be a difference is in the number of hours
worked by the artists who held two jobs compared to the professional workers
who also held two jobs. Professional workers averaged significantly more hours
per week working at their first job than the artists averaged over this period
(Chart 3.13). Professional workers averaged 37.7 hours per week while the
artists averaged 33.4 hours at their first job. It is also true, though to a lesser
degree, that professional and technical workers worked more, on average, at
Moonlighting by American Artists 37
their second jobs than artists (Chart 3.14). Professional workers averaged 12.3
hours per week at their second jobs, while artists averaged only 12.1 hours per
week, not a significant difference. The number of hours worked on the second
job by the artists ranged between 20 percent and 50 percent of the hours
worked at the first job over this period. For professional workers the variation
was much smaller with the second job hours ranging between 30 percent and
35 percent of the hours worked on the first job.
The gender composition of moonlighting artists changed considerably over
this period. The major change appears to have occurred during the 1980s
(Chart 3.15). Over the early period of this study, 1970-1980, the percentage of
moonlighting artists who were men averaged 72 percent. For the later period of
time, 1985-1997, this percentage decreased to 56 percent. While this change
was considerable, it was not unique to this group. There was a similar decline
in the proportion of men among moonlighting professional and technical work-
ers, and among the artists who were not multiple jobholders. In fact, by 1994
the proportion of female professional and technical workers who were multiple
jobholders was greater than one-half.
Multiple jobholding artists were both younger and not as well educated as
other multiple jobholding professional and technical workers. This was true
throughout the entire period, except for 1997, when multiple jobholding artists
were slightly older than multiple jobholding professional and technical workers.
Artists with second jobs averaged 36.9 years of age and 15.3 years of formal
schooling (excluding 1994-1997, when the CPS changed its method of measur-
ing the amount of formal schooling completed)/ This does not include
schooling outside the traditional primary, secondary and higher education insti-
tutions. Professional workers were, on average, 38.2 years of age and had
completed an average of 16.2 years of schooling (excludes 1994 to 1997). The
average age of multiple jobholding artists at the end of the 27 year period was
five years greater than at the beginning, while the average age of the profes-
sional and technical multiple jobholders had only increased by a little more than
one year.
There was a considerable difference in the proportion of multiple jobholding
artists by race over the twenty-seven year period. The proportion minority
(non-white) ranged from approximately two percent to almost fourteen percent
over the period. The reliability of these estimates is of concern given the rela-
tively small numbers of minority multiple jobholding artists in most years. In
4. Starting in 1994 the CPS measured the highest level of formal school completed or degree received, not
years of schooling completed.
38 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
most years, a higher percentage of artist moonlighters were white than were
other professional moonlighters. However, whites form a higher percentage of
total artist employment than of total other professional employment.
Multiple Jobholding Artists Versus Non-Multiple Jobholding
Artists
It is clear that artists differ in their multiple johholding hehavior. It was
shown above that the artists' multiple jobholding rates vary by type of artist.
What follows is a comparison of artists who hold more than one job at a time
to those artists who do not.
It's not surprising to find that those artists who moonlight tend to be younger
than artists who have only one job. It typically is the younger artists who often
struggle to earn enough from artistic work when first starting in the profession,
and therefore have to look toward second jobs to help cover expenses. The aver-
age age of multiple jobholding artists over this twenty-seven year period was
36.9 years. The average age of artists who did not have second jobs was 38.3
years. By 1997 the average ages for the two groups of artists were essentially
the same, with the multiple jobholding artists being slightly older.
Artists who held second jobs tend to have more formal schooling than artists
who did not hold second jobs. The annual average for the multiple jobholding
artists from this period (excluding 1994 to 1997) was 15.3 years of schooling
completed while the average for artists with only one job was 14.4 years of
schooling. The high multiple jobholding rate for the "other artists," which
includes the post-secondary school art teachers, helps explain this observation.
Two other demographic characteristics of the artists also distinguished non-
moonlighting artists from those who held second jobs. Non-moonlighting
artists comprised a larger percentage of women than moonlighting artists. For
this period an average of 36.7 percent of non-multiple jobholders were female,
compared to 34.3 percent of the multiple jobholders. The non-multiple job-
holding artists were also more likely to be minority than the multiple
jobholders. For the period, an average of 7.0 percent of the non-multiple job-
holders were minority, compared to 5.8 percent of the multiple jobholders.
Non-multiple jobholding artists averaged more hours of work at their only
job than did multiple jobholding artists did on their primary jobs. Non-multi-
ple jobholders spent an average of 36.3 hours per week working while the
multiple jobholders spent 33.4 hours working at their primary jobs. It should
be pointed out that the multiple jobholding artists' total time spent working was
more than the time spent by the non-multiple jobholders. Multiple jobholders
Moonlighting by American Artists 39
spent an average of 12.1 hours per week working at their second jobs. Such dif-
ferences in hours worked between multiple and non-multiple jobholders can be
seen in virtually all occupations.
Workers Who Moonlight As Artists
It is well known that some moonlighters with non-artistic primary jobs have
second jobs in the arts. Unfortunately, due to data restrictions, it's only possible
to examine this group of artists tor the period of 1985 to 1997. In this section
these second-job artists will be described and compared to moonlighters whose
primary jobs are artistic.
Performing artist was the most common second artistic job held by multiple
jobholders whose primary job was not in the arts (Chart 3. 16). Over this period
between 45 percent and 55 percent of moonlighters whose primary occupations
were outside the arts but who held second jobs in the arts were performers
(musicians, dancers, actors and announcers). One possible explanation tor this
result is that people working in the performing arts are most likely also to have
jobs outside the arts based on the risk-spreading motive for job packaging, that
is, to compensate for the sporadic, short-term nature of employment in their
field. When the non-arts work consumes more hours than the performing arts
work in a given week, the CPS classification shows a non-arts primary job and
a second job in the arts.
The next most commonly held second artistic job, in all years except 1997,
was that of other artists. Between 17 and 27 percent of the non-artists moon-
lighters held other artist (authors, post-secondary teachers of art, or artist(s) not
elsewhere classified) jobs. Working as a visual artist, (painter, sculptor, artist
printmaker, craft artist, or photographer) was the third next most common sec-
ond artistic job, accounting for between 15 percent and 19 percent of all artistic
second jobs. Working as an architect or a designer was the least likely artistic
second job.
Those with a primary occupation outside the arts and a second one in the
arts were more likely to be men than were primary job artists. On average, 60
percent of those people with second jobs in the arts were men. Among artists
who also held second jobs in the arts, the proportion male averaged less, about
56 percent. Only among those who worked as architects and designers as a sec-
ond occupation (an occupation in which men are more than half of the primary
jobholders) did the number of women exceed the number of men. It is not entirely
clear why, relative to women, men are more likely to moonlight as artists than to
hold primary artist jobs. In the context of a stereotypical husband-wife household,
40 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
these behaviors are consistent with the notion of the husband having the primary,
more stable job, and flirting with an artist career in a second job. Continuing this
logic, it is also consistent with the notion of the wife being a secondary source of
income, and thus being able to embark on a riskier career path.
There were several additional characteristics that distinguished multiple job-
holders with artistic second jobs from multiple jobholders with artistic primary
jobs. Artistic second jobholders were, on average, slightly older, 38.0 years old
compared to 36.9 years old. They were somewhat better educated having com-
pleted 15.6 years of formal schooling compared to 15.3 years for the artistic
primary jobholders. The percentage of non-whites among second jobholders in
the arts averaged almost two-thirds more than the percentage among primary
jobholding artists.
Another difference between these two groups of artists was the amount of
time they spent working at their first and second jobs. Those artists with their
primary jobs outside the arts tended to work more hours on their primary jobs
(37.6 hours per week) than those whose primary jobs were in the arts (33.4
hours per week). Perhaps not surprisingly, the group whose primary jobs were
outside the arts worked fewer hours at their second arts jobs (an annual aver-
age of 10.7 hours per week), than those with artistic primary jobs (12.1 hours
per week). In total, those who were not working as artists in their primary jobs
worked more hours than those who were artists in their primary jobs. This find-
ing is consistent with observations made earlier that artists work fewer hours in
their primary job (whether moonlighters or not) than other professionals.
Perhaps the difference in the amount of time spent working on second jobs
between the two groups can be explained by the artists' stated reasons for work-
ing at second jobs. Information on why workers held artistic second jobs is
available only for the years 1985, 1989, and 1991. In 1991, one of the major
differences between these two groups of artists lies in the percentage that indi-
cated they worked at their second jobs because they "enjoyed" them. 5 Persons
who worked as artists in second jobs but held primary jobs outside the arts
indicated that they worked at their second (arts) jobs because they "enjoyed"
them nearly twice as often as did primary job artists with non-artistic second
jobs; the difference in the "enjoyment" frequency for the second job was 45
percent versus 23 percent.
In 1985 and 1989 the CPS did not provide multiple jobholders with the
choice of "enjoy" as a reason for holding a second job. It did permit the multiple
5. The only year in which the information on a second occupation allowed the identification of artists'
second jobs and where they were able to select "enjoy" as a reason for working at a second job was 1991.
Moonlighting by American Artists 41
jobholder to choose "obtain an experience that differed from the primary job"
as a reason for moonlighting. In 1989, second job artists were twice as likely to
select this reason to explain their multiple jobholding than primary job artists
(28 percent compared to 14 percent). However, in 1985, both groups chose this
reason with roughly equal frequency.
In all three /ears there was a considerable difference between the two groups
oi artists in the proportion indicating that they held second jobs because they
"needed to work to meet their households' regular expenses." In 1991, the pro-
portion i^i primary job artists who indicated that they were working at their
second jobs because they "needed additional earnings to cover household
expenses" was greater than twice that of second job artists. The difference was
34 percent versus 15 percent. In 1989 the proportion of primary job artists who
identified this reason was twice the proportion of secondary job artists: 46 per-
cent versus 23 percent, respectively. In 1985 the difference was not as extreme:
33 percent versus 22 percent.
This evidence indicates that artistic second jobs are often pursued because of
the pleasure they give or because of the interesting experiences they provide.
They are pursued less often because of the help they provide in enhancing
income. Although, based on this information, it is tempting to treat artists' sec-
ond jobs as "avocations," evidence from direct surveys of artists indicates that
even secondary job artists often identify more closely with their artistic jobs. On
the other hand, primary job artists chose supplementing their income as the
most likely reason for holding a second job outside the arts, a justification more
consistent with the "hours constraint" theory of multiple jobholding.
Reasons for Multiple Jobholding
The reasons for holding more than one job at a time can be as varied as the
number of jobs being held. During some of the twenty-seven year period cov-
ered in this report, as already seen, the CPS asked the people who held second
jobs to indicate their reasons for doing so. This section will examine the reasons
given for holding more than one job at a time by those with artistic primary
occupations and compare them to the reasons given by the non-artist profes-
sionals who were multiple jobholders.
The most frequent explanation provided by artists for holding multiple jobs
was that they needed the additional earnings generated by the second jobs to
meet their households' regular expenses (Chart 3.17). This was also the most
frequent explanation given by other professionals in all but three of the years
(Chart 3.18). An average of almost one-third of the multiple jobholding artists
42 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
in this period identified meeting regular expenses as their reason for a second
job, while only about one-quarter of the multiple jobholding professionals
selected it as their reason for working at second jobs.
Enjoying the work they were doing on the second job was the second most
frequently identified reason for being a multiple jobholder by artists for most
years. In two of the years it was the most frequently cited explanation. The
same was true for professional workers who were multiple jobholders. There
was little difference between the percentage of artists and the percentage of pro-
fessional workers who indicated this was the reason for holding a second job.
The desire to obtain a different experience than what they were getting at their
primary jobs was the third most common explanation for multiple jobholding
among the artists. This was the case for almost all the survey years. The same was
true for the multiple jobholding professional workers, but in fewer of the survey
years. Additionally, the percentages of artists and professional workers identifying
this reason for being multiple jobholders were approximately the same.
The frequencies with which the artists chose the remaining explanations for
multiple jobholding over this period did not follow as clear a pattern. The gen-
eral pattern for the remaining three reasons was essentially the same for both
the artists and the other professional workers. The need for extra money was
the next most commonly cited explanation. This was then followed, quite
closely, by both the desire to earn some money to put into savings, and to earn
some money to pay off some already existing debts.
Not surprisingly, the reasons for the artists' multiple jobholding behavior are
not the same across all types of artists (Appendix Charts A-3.13 to A-3.16).
Visual artists were most likely to have indicated that the need to cover their
households' regular expenses was their reason for holding second jobs. An aver-
age of almost forty percent of the visual artists identified this reason over the
period. They were the least likely of the artists to have indicated that they were
doing so because they enjoyed working at their second jobs. Only about twelve
percent identified this as a reason for having held a second job.
Architects and designers were the least likely to have identified the need to cover
the households' regular expenses as the reason for holding their second jobs. Less
than twenty percent, on average, cited this reason. They were the most likely artists
to be holding their second jobs to gain a different experience than what they were
getting on their primary jobs. This was the reason cited by approximately one-
quarter of the architects and designers. In fact, architects and designers cited the
need to cover expenses as a reason for holding second jobs less frequently than the
other professionals who were multiple jobholders cited it.
Moonlighting by American Artists I 43
lr was the .mists who comprise the "other" artists group who were most
likely ro have indicated that they were multiple jobholders because of the enjoy-
ment they received from their second jobs. This reason was cited, on average,
bj slightly more than thirty percent of the artists in this group. This group of
artists was also the least likely to have been working at second jobs because they
wanted an experience that differed from what they were getting on their pri-
mary job. lr was a reason cited by less than six percent of the multiple
jobholding artists in this group.
Multiple jobholding performing artists were the second most likely, after the
visual artists, to have indicated that they worked at their second jobs because
they found the work to be enjoyable. An average of more than one-third of the
performers indicated this was why they worked at second jobs. The performers
were among the least likely of artists to indicate that they held second jobs to
help pay off their debts. Fewer than four percent of the performers and the
artists in the "other" artists group indicated this was the reason for working at
a second job.
Second Jobs Held by Artists
Since artists indicate that they hold second jobs because they need the addi-
tional income, the question of how artists accomplish this can be partially
answered by looking at the types of second jobs held by the multiple jobhold-
ing artists. Over this twenty-seven year period there appear to have been some
significant changes in the types of second jobs they held. Also, some of what
they do in second jobs may be contrary to the stereotypes of artists, such as
driving taxis or waiting on tables. This section will provide a brief examination
of some characteristics of the second jobs held by artists.
The most common type of second job held by artists over this period was one
among the professional and technical occupations (Chart 3.19). In fact, over
this period between 55 percent and 75 percent of the artists with second jobs
had professional or technical jobs as their second jobs. It is important to note
that the arts occupations are included among the professional and technical
occupations. It was not possible for much of the study period to separately iden-
tify the arts occupations among the other professional and technical
occupations for the second jobs. Therefore, much of the multiple jobholding
may actually involve artists working in second arts occupations; for example,
an professor of art at a college or university who identifies his/her second job as
painter (visual artist).
44 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
From 1985 (when greater detail became available on the occupation of the
second jobs) through 1997 there apparently was a considerable change in the
proportion of artists whose second occupations were also in arts occupations.
In 1985, 60 percent of the artists' second jobs were in artistic occupations. By
the mid to late '90s the proportion with second artistic occupations settled at
around one-third. The annual average over this period was almost 40 percent
holding second arts jobs. Over the same period there was a considerable growth
in the proportion of artists working in the other professional, managerial and
technical occupations, from approximately 13 percent in 1985 to slightly more
than 31 percent in 1996. In 1997 the proportion was somewhat lower. There
was also growth in the proportion of artists who worked as sales workers, cler-
ical workers and service workers for their second jobs. In 1985 approximately
15 percent of multiple jobholding artists worked in these occupations and by
1997 slightly more than one-quarter worked in them. Throughout the twenty-
seven year period the sales, clerical and service jobs rarely counted for less than
20 percent of the artists' second jobs. In fact, the annual average was 19 per-
cent for artists compared to 24 percent for the other professional workers who
held second jobs.
There were considerable differences among artists' primary arts occupations
in the proportion of artists whose second occupation was also an artistic one
(Appendix Charts A-3.17 to A-3.20). Over the 1985 to 1997 period, multiple
jobholding visual artists were by far the most likely to work at second arts occu-
pations. On average, each year almost 47 percent of the multiple jobholding
visual artists worked a second job in an artistic occupation. The artists least
likely to be working at a second job in an artistic occupation were the performers.
On average a little more than 33 percent of them worked in a second artistic occu-
pation. The behavior of the "other" artists was very much like the performers, with
an annual average of 35 percent also working in a second artistic occupation. With
an average participation rate of 40 percent, architects and designers were some-
what more likely to have a second job in the arts. It is interesting to note that an
average of more than 6 percent of the other professional workers who were mul-
tiple jobholders held second jobs in the arts (Chart 3.20).
There are also differences among artists' primary arts occupations in the like-
lihood of holding their second jobs in the sales, clerical and service occupations.
The differences in the annual average proportion of artists holding second jobs
in these occupations are not as large as for those holding second artistic occu-
pations. Architects and designers were the most likely to have second jobs in
one of these occupations. On average more than 26 percent of architects and
Moonlighting by American Artists ' 45
designers holding second jobs worked in one of these occupations. The artists
in the "other" category were the least likely, with an annual average of just
under I 7 percent. A somewhat surprising finding is that performers held slightly
less than 20 percent ot their second jobs in the sales, clerical and services occu-
pations. These occupations include the stereotypical second jobs thought to be
held by performers, including waiting on tables. On average, almost one-quar-
ter of the visual artists with second jobs worked in one of these occupations.
To obtain a better understanding of artists' multiple jobholding behavior, it
is also important to examine where they held their second jobs. One dimension
of this question is the nature of employment: tor example, public versus private
employment, and working for an employer or self-employed. An examination
of the work environment finds that on their second jobs, moonlighting artists
were most likely to have worked in the private sector as employees of busi-
nesses, both for profit and non-profit (Chart 3.21 ). Depending on the year, the
proportion with second jobs working for firms in the private sector ranged from
40 percent to as high as 65 percent, with an annual average of 5 1 percent of the
jobs being held there. Being self-employed in some income-earning activity was
the second most likely venue for the multiple jobholding artists. The proportion
of self-employed artists ranged from 22 percent to 50 percent over the twenty-
seven year period, with an average of 39 percent self-employed annually.
The least likely place for artists to hold their second jobs was in the govern-
ment sector. From 7 percent to 18 percent of moonlighting artists held second
jobs working for the federal, state, or local governments over the twenty-seven
year period, with an annual average of 1 1 percent. On average, compared to
other professionals who were multiple jobholders (Chart 3.22), multiple job-
holding artists were equally likely to have their second jobs in the private sector
(51 percent versus 49 percent). They were slightly more likely to be self-
employed (39 percent versus 31 percent) than other professionals. They were
also considerably less likely to be working in the government sector (1 1 percent
versus 20 percent) than other professionals.
A closer examination of the nature of employment for the second job sug-
gests that one group of artists, the performers, differs considerably from their
artistic colleagues in where they found their second jobs (Appendix Charts
A-3.21 to A-3.24). Multiple jobholding performers were much more likely to
have held second jobs in the private sector than any other moonlighting artists.
Sixty-two percent of them, on average, worked in the private sector; while the
average for all the other artists was less than half for the twenty-seven year
period (42 percent for architects and designers, 46 percent for visual artists, and
46 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
48 percent for other artists). As a result, performers were much less likely, to be
self-employed on their second jobs than their colleagues (27 percent as com-
pared to 49 percent for architects and designers, 43 percent for visual artists and
36 percent for other artists). Performers were not that different relative to all
other artists in their likelihood of employment in the government sector, with
slightly more than eight percent having held second jobs there. It was the other
artists group who were most likely to have held second jobs in the government
sector, with more than 16 percent having done so compared to 10 percent of
architects and designers and 1 1 percent of visual artists.
Another way of parsing the context of artists' second jobs is to examine the
industries in which these jobs are held. The most common industry of employ-
ment for second jobs of both artists and other professionals was the
"professional services" industry (Chart 3.23). More than one-third of both
groups, on average, held jobs in this industry (36 percent of the artists and 38
percent of the other professionals). This reflects the fact that the Census defines
self-employed artists as working in the "professional services" industry along
with self-employed lawyers, doctors, and other professionals. Artists differed
from their professional peers (Chart 3.24) throughout the period by being more
than twice as likely to hold their second jobs in the entertainment industry (12.4
percent versus 5.4 percent), and being more likely to have second jobs in the
service industry than their professional peers (18 percent versus 14 percent). To
artists, service jobs not only provide flexible work to fill in gaps in an artistic
career, but represent a growth area in the economy. A larger difference is found
in the proportion of artists working in the wholesale trade, retail trade, finance,
insurance and real estate industries. The non-artist professional workers were
one-third more likely to have worked in these industries than their artist peers
(22 percent versus 16 percent).
Within the artistic professions there exists considerable, though not as large,
differences in the industry of employment for the second jobs (Appendix Charts
A-3.25 to A-3.28). The largest difference is in the likelihood of employment in
the service industries. Visual artists were almost three times as likely, on aver-
age, to have worked in the service industries than other artists (31 percent
versus 1 1 percent) and more than twice as likely than performing artists (15 per-
cent). Only about 13 percent of architects and designers and visual artists had
second jobs in the entertainment industry, but almost 20 percent of other artists
and almost one-quarter of performing artists held second jobs in this industry.
The other differences that existed in the rate of employment in a second indus-
try were not as large across the artistic occupations. The remaining major
difference is working in the "professional services" industry when comparing
Moonlighting by American Artists I 47
performing artists to other artists. The other artists were considerably more
likely to h.ne worked in this industry (48 percent) than the performers (28 per-
cent). There was essentially no difference in the likelihood of architects and
designers and visual artists in working in this industry. There is relatively little
difference in the likelihood of different types of artist working in the manufac-
turing, communications, or public utilities industries.
Multiple Jobholding Artists: Detailed Demographics
The characteristics of artists who were multiple jobholders varied over the
twenty-seven year period, in some cases by type of artist, or over time, and
sometimes by both aspects. What follows is an examination of differences in the
age, schooling, gender distribution, racial distribution, geographic distribution,
and marital status of the artists who were multiple jobholders. There will also
be a comparison to the non-multiple jobholding artists.
By Gender
The average proportion of multiple jobholding artists who were men ranged
from almost 63 percent for other artists to almost 72 percent for architects and
designers. Among single jobholding artists, a greater difference exists across
types of artist in the proportion of men. This is primarily due to a significantly
smaller proportion of men among the other artists group for the single job-
holders (55 percent versus 70 percent for architects and about 65 percent for all
others). Over the 27-year period, there was a significant increase in the propor-
tion of women among both the multiple and non-multiple jobholding artists in
all but the performing artist group (Chart 3.25). The proportion of multiple
jobholding architects and designers who were women increased from almost
zero in 1970 to more than half in 1997. For non-multiple jobholding architects
and designers the change was also dramatic; the percent women went from
about 15 in 1970 to 50 in 1997. The period of the most dramatic change
appears to have been the early 1980s for both groups of architects and design-
ers. Between 1980 and 1985 the proportion of multiple jobholding architects
and designers who were women almost tripled; over the same period the pro-
portion of women among non-multiple jobholders in these occupations more
than doubled. Changes for the visual and other artists in both groups were not
as great.
By Race
Over time, multiple jobholding artists differed less by race than they did by
gender (Chart 3.26). The proportion of white artists ranged from almost 93 per-
48 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
cent for performing artists to almost 96 percent for visual artists. While the pro-
portion white tended to decrease over time for all artist groups, the decline was
only significant among performers. In 1970 the proportion of moonlighting
performers who were white was greater than 98 percent; by 1997 the propor-
tion had decreased to approximately 86 percent.
The racial composition of non-multiple jobholding artists was more diverse
than that of their multiple jobholding colleagues. The differences in the pro-
portion white over the period were significant across the four artist groups. The
percentage of whites ranged from just under 90 for performing artists to almost
95 for visual artists. The racial diversity of all four groups of non-multiple job-
holding artists increased significantly over the twenty-seven years. The biggest
change was among visual artists, where the proportion of whites decreased by
more than eight percent over the period. The smallest change was among archi-
tects and designers, with a decrease of approximately five percent in the
proportion of whites. Both performing and other artists had decreases of about
seven percent.
It is not clear why minority artists moonlight less frequently than white
artists. Evidence for the entire labor force examined in Chapter 2 also revealed
that minorities were less likely to moonlight than whites. Artists are no differ-
ent in this respect.
By Educational Attainment
Over the 1970 to 1991 period, there was a significant difference between the
amount of formal schooling (primary, secondary and college) completed by
multiple jobholding artists (Chart 3.27) and by artists without second jobs.
(Because of changes in the Census methodology, years of schooling cannot be
estimated after 1991.) Multiple jobholding visual artists had the least amount
of formal education, with slightly more than 14 years of schooling. Visual
artists without second jobs also averaged the least schooling among artists with-
out second jobs. They were marginally less educated than their multiple
jobholding colleagues. Multiple jobholding performing artists completed more
schooling than visual artists, averaging just under 15 years. Non-multiple job-
holding performers averaged less than their multiple jobholding colleagues,
with just under 14 years of formal schooling. Both multiple jobholding and non
multiple jobholding architects and designers averaged more schooling — 15.7
years — than their performing arts and visual arts colleagues. Multiple jobhold-
ing other artists were the most highly educated, averaging 16.5 years of
schooling. Among the artists in the other artist group are the post-secondary
teachers of art, music and drama.
Moonlighting by American Artists 49
There also was significant growth in the amount of formal schooling com-
pleted by multiple jobholding performing and visual artists over this period.
The average amount of schooling completed by performing artists rose from
I J.3 years in l L) ~l to 15.3 years in 1 C > C M. Years of schooling for visual artists
rose from 12.6 years in l L ^~0 to 14.1 years in 1 99 I. Increases in years of school
also occurred among non-multiple jobholding visual artists and other artists
over this period.
By Age
The average age of the multiple (Chart 3.28) and non-multiple jobholding
artists varied significantly with type of artist and, in some cases, increased over
rime. Performing artists, whether multiple jobholders or nor, were the youngest.
The average age of those with second jobs was 35.3 years; of those without sec-
ond jobs it was 34.5 years. Both types of other artists were by far the oldest. At
38.7 years, the age of multiple jobholding other artists was two years greater
than their visual artist colleagues, the next oldest group. For other artists with-
out second jobs, the difference between them and their visual artist colleagues
was almost three years (41.5 versus 38.6 respectively). Multiple jobholding
architects and designers were three years younger than their non-multiple job-
holding colleagues (36.1 versus 39.2 years old). Both multiple jobholding
architects and designers and visual artists had significant increases in average
ages for the period, as did non-multiple jobholding other artists.
By Marital Status
The discussion of the marital status of multiple jobholding artists is limited
to the 1989-1997 period (Chart 3.29). Prior to 1989, people who were sepa-
rated but not divorced were considered by the CPS to be married, but during
the 1989-97 period they were included with those who were widowed and
divorced. The latter appears to be a more appropriate classification from an
economic perspective.
Married artists comprised the largest group regardless of the artist type.
Throughout the period, non-multiple jobholders were more likely to be married
than their multiple jobholder counterparts. This no doubt reflects the impor-
tance of the alternative of economic support provided by the artist's spouse. With
the exception of performing artists, more than half the artists were married during
this period (Appendix Charts A-3.29 to A-3.32). Performing artists, being the
youngest, were the most likely to have never married. Regardless of the type of
artist, the proportion who were widowed, separated or divorced was the smallest;
it ranged from 12 percent for the multiple jobholding architects and designers,
50 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
and for performers, to almost 16 percent for multiple jobholding visual artists.
The percentage of widowed, separated or divorced non-multiple jobholding
artists ranged from 12 percent for architects and designers to 16 percent for
other artists.
By Region
In some cases, the geographic distribution of the artists is likely to reflect rel-
ative market conditions for the artists' primary income earnings activity, their
art. In others, it may simply reflect the distribution of artists' residences.
However, aggregating place of residence to just four regions may blur such dis-
tinctions (Chart 3.30). Nevertheless, we observe some differences.
There was a somewhat greater concentration of multiple jobholding archi-
tects and designers in the midwest, where an average of 31 percent of them
resided, versus 25 percent in the south and approximately 28 percent in both
the northeast and west (Appendix Charts A-3.33 to A-3.36). There was a
greater concentration of non-multiple jobholding architects and designers in the
northeast (30 percent on average), with the smallest shares in the midwest and
west (an average of approximately 22 percent). Multiple jobholding performing
artists were relatively evenly distributed across the four regions. Non-multiple
jobholding performing artists were less equally distributed, being concentrated
in the south (an average of 30 percent) and the west (almost 28 percent), but
not in the midwest or northeast (20 percent). Visual artists multiple jobholders
were more concentrated in the west (almost 30 percent) and least concentrated
in the northeast (21 percent). The midwest and the south again had almost
equal proportions, around 26 percent each. An average of almost 23 percent of
the multiple jobholding other artists lived in the midwest, with 26 percent in
both the northeast and the west, and 29 percent in the south over this twenty-
seven year period. Both the non-multiple jobholding visual and other artists
were, on average, evenly distributed across the four regions of the country.
Direct Surveys of U.S. Artists
Information on artists' multiple jobholding from the CPS and the Census is
limited in several important ways. Various direct surveys of artists undertaken
in this country provide additional information not available through the CPS
and the Census. In some cases this includes information on multiple jobholding.
This section will examine the findings from these surveys on artists' multiple
jobholding behavior. First to be discussed is how the information in the Census
and the direct artist surveys can be viewed as complementary.
Moonlighting by American Artists 51
The Census and CPS Methodology
"The CPS and Census data arc limited by the aggregation of artistic occupa-
tions into eleven artistic groups making it difficult, it not impossible, to develop
a full understanding of the nuances of the various artistic occupations that mul-
tiple jobholding artists simultaneously hold. For example, the CPS can identify
an artist who is both a musician and a novelist or a musician and a dentist, since
these occupations tall into two distinct CPS occupational groups. However, it
cannot identity the artist who works as both a painter and a sculptor since it
identities both occupations as part of the visual artist group. A direct survey of
artists can utilize more specific and narrow occupational definitions to explore
multiple jobholding behavior more comprehensively.
The CPS information, like that of the Census, is based on the artist's chief job
or business activity in the week prior to the survey week. Thus it does not iden-
tify any work activity that the artist may have participated in at other times of
the year. As noted in Chapter 2, the number of artists identified as multiple job-
holders during the week the survey is taken is likely to be less than the number
of artists who hold multiple jobs during the year, either simultaneously or
sequentially. Virtually all of the artist surveys ask questions about jobs held
throughout an entire year, not a reference week.
Further, neither the CPS nor the Census considers a person who is self-
employed to be a multiple jobholder if his/her second work activity is also as a
self-employed worker (Stinson, 1997, 3). Therefore, a self-employed painter
and photographer is not categorized as a multiple jobholder. If the same person
painted and worked as a photographer for a newspaper, this artist would count
as a multiple jobholder according to the CPS. Finally, the CPS only collects
information on one additional job. If a person actually holds more than two
jobs simultaneously or over a period of time, this would not be identified in the
data. The case of a musician who performed at a club in the evening, drove a
taxi in the morning, and was a cashier at K-Mart in the afternoon, all during
the same week, would not be fully documented in the CPS.
Direct Survey Methodology
Direct surveys of artists possess other more generalized differences from the
Census/CPS methodology. First, they have been administered by researchers
looking to collect specific information about artists. Thus they are not limited
by the problem of designing a questionnaire that applies to all types of worker.
Second, sample selection is usually quite different. These surveys may be aimed
at a particular group of artists (performers who are union members, e.g.), in
52 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
which case no attempt is made to draw a random sample. Alternatively, the
sample base may be broad but a lack of knowledge of the entire population may
render it impossible to make random selections from the population. As a con-
sequence, conclusions drawn from the survey results, though they may be valid,
cannot be as easily generalized to the entire artist population.
Another important implication of the sampling methodology is that the vast
majority of persons in direct artist surveys self-identify as artists. In the Census
and CPS, any person in the labor force is assigned to the occupation in which
he or she spent the most time working in the reference week. For example, this
leads to classifying as a courier an unemployed actor who delivers messages in
the reference week. In a direct survey in which artists self-identify, this person
would more likely declare to be, and be classified as, an actor. 6
A Review of Direct Surveys of Artists
A survey of artists in New England undertaken in the early 1980s (Wassail,
et al, 1983) provides detailed information on artists' multiple jobholding behav-
ior for an entire year rather than for one week during the year. This study also
used a more narrow definition of the artist occupation; the categories used can
be seen in Table 3-1 . Artists were asked to distinguish among three types of jobs
that they may have held during the year. These were: artist; arts-related, such as
arts teacher or as arts administrator; and non arts-related, such as courier or
salesperson." Depending on the specific artistic occupation, 10.8 to 37.1 percent
of the surveyed artists indicated that they had worked solely as artists during
the year (Wassail, et. al., 1983, Tables 7, 32). The remainder indicated that they
had held either an arts-related job or a non arts-related job or both at some time
during the year. As a consequence the rate of multiple jobholding for these New
England artists was considerably greater over the entire year than it would have
been in any particular month of the year.
Consistent with the findings of the CPS data, multiple jobholding when
viewed on an annual basis also differed with the type of artist. Those artists
who were most likely to work outside their artistic occupations during the year
were choreographers, composers and playwrights (90 percent), musicians (86
percent), dancers (84 percent), and writers and poets (84 percent). Those most
6. For example, in the New England artist survey discussed immediately below, 74.1 percent of those
surveyed declared artist as their "principal profession," even though 52.6 percent had zero or negative net
artistic income (i.e., income after deducting the expenses of earning that income), and only 24.1 percent held
no non-artistic job during the survey year, (Wassail and Alper, 1985). The debate over whether one's occupa-
tion is defined by what one does or what one claims to be perhaps can never be resolved.
7. Thus some occupations defined as artistic in the NEA classification scheme (art, drama and music teach-
ers, e.g.) were defined as arts-related in this survey.
Moonlighting by American Artists 53
likel) to work only .is artists and hold no other jobs during the year were visual
artists (27 percent), craft artists (34 percent) and actors (37 percent).
More than half (55 percent) of the New England artists had held an arts-
related job at some time during the year. Choreographers, composers, and
playwrights were the most likely to have held arts-related jobs (almost (SO per-
cent). Two-thirds of the dancers and musicians also spent time doing
arts-related work. The actors and the crafts artists were the least likely to have
done this type of work, approximately 40 percent of both groups did so. The
vast majority, almost 80 percent (Wassail, et. al. 1 983, Table 8, 34) of the artists
who did arts-related work taught their art. This could have been in a formal
school environment or by providing private lessons. Almost ten percent worked
in arts management, and six percent had other professional and technical jobs
in the arts.
Slightly more than one-third (36 percent) the New England artists worked in
non arts-related jobs. The writers were the most likely to have held such jobs,
with 44 percent having done so, while dancers and actors were only slightly less
likely to have held non arts-related jobs (41 and 40 percent respectively).
Approximately one-third the musicians, visual artists, and craft artists held non
arts-related jobs. The choreographers, composers, and playwrights were the
least likely with only 28 percent having non arts-related work, probably
because most of them were already working in arts-related jobs along with their
art work. The primary occupation for these jobs was not waiting on tables, only
14 percent of the non arts-related jobs were service jobs, nor was it driving a
cab, only five percent held operative jobs. The most commonly held non arts-
related occupations were non teaching professional and technical occupations,
with almost 20 percent of those having held a non arts-related job having one
of these. Non arts teaching was the next most likely occupation to be held by
the artists (15 percent), with clerical work next (13 percent). Sales and mana-
gerial jobs were each held by approximately eleven percent of the artists who
worked at a non arts-related job.
Because so many artists worked outside their artistic occupations, the survey
probed for reasons for moonlighting. Artists were permitted to choose as many
reasons as applied to their situations. Not surprisingly, and consistent with the
CPS findings, the primary reasons that the New England artists gave for taking
on extra jobs were economic (Wassail, et. al., 1983, Table 11, 37). More than
60 percent indicated they worked outside their art because the work paid bet-
ter. Almost half also indicated that the non-arts jobs provided better job security
than their arts jobs, and half also indicated that they took on this other work
54 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
because there was not enough work available in their artistic fields. s A very
small proportion of artists indicated that they actually preferred their non-arts
work to their arts work (approximately four percent), while almost 40 percent
indicated that they worked outside their art because they felt it complemented
their work as artists.
The evidence from the New England survey on simultaneous multiple job-
holding is consistent with the CPS. An examination of the average number of
weeks worked by the New England artists in each type of job provides indirect
evidence to support this explanation (Wassail, et. al., 1983, Table 13, 39). On
average artists reported working 36 weeks in their art, 17 weeks in jobs related
to their art, and almost 12 weeks in other, non-arts related jobs. The only way
the total number of weeks worked in all these jobs combined can average 66
weeks is through concurrent multiple jobholding. The evidence is even stronger
when simply looking at those artists who actually worked outside their artistic
occupations. Artists who held arts-related jobs averaged almost 33 weeks work-
ing at these jobs, and those who held non arts-related jobs spent an equal
amount of time working at them. Again, this can only occur by simultaneously
holding more than one job.
The importance of all these work activities on the artists' economic well-
being is best examined by looking at their contributions to the artist's income.
Consistent with the reasons for holding more than one job cited by the CPS and
this survey, the arts-related and non arts-related work undertaken by artists
were important components of their total income (Table 3.1 ). On average, earn-
ings from these second jobs accounted for almost half the artists' total income
(48.9 percent). Working as an artist contributed about 40 percent, with the
remaining 10 percent from non-labor sources such as Social Security, invest-
ments, and welfare. Interestingly, among the artists in the 1981 survey, actors
earned the largest share of their income from working in their art, approxi-
mately 70 percent. Actors also were the artists for who arts-related earnings
accounted for the smallest share of their income, approximately seven percent.
For choreographers, composers, and playwrights it was the reverse. Their work
in their art form accounted for the smallest share of income among all the artists
surveyed, only 22 percent, while their arts-related earnings contributed the
most, almost 60 percent. Of all the artists it was actors and theater production
personnel who earned the smallest share of their income from non arts-related
work, approximately 1 1 percent. The dancers were the artists who earned the
8. Unlike the CPS, in the New England study artists were able to identity more than one reason for having .1
second job.
Moonlighting by American Artists 55
largest share of their income from non arts-related jobs. Earnings from this type
of work accounted tor almost 26 percent of their total income, more than dou-
ble the contribution of the actors' work in non arts-related employment.
Another work related characteristic of artists is that many work in a variety
of artistic occupations. For example there are painters who sculpt, actors who
write, and dancers who also work as choreographers. Many of the artists in the
New England survey indicated that they had a second artistic occupation
(Wassail, et. al., 1983, Table A-3, 184). Musicians were the most likely to have
identified a second artistic occupation, with almost three-quarters indicating
they did, while the crafts artists were the least likely, with only one-third indi-
cating that they had a second artistic occupation. For dancers the most common
second occupation was that ot choreographer, 38 percent of the dancers listed
choreography as their second occupation, and the second most common, iden-
tified by 10 percent of the dancers, was a second dance form. An almost equal
number of dancers identified their second occupation as musician, actor, or
visual artist, with almost five percent in each occupation. Almost 60 percent of
musicians listed a second musical occupation, while an additional seven percent
identified composing. Two of the significant second occupations for actors were
working in theater production ( 14 percent) and writing (seven percent). Writers
and poets were often involved in more than one writing activity (almost 30 per-
cent), and five percent were also involved in the visual arts. Those who
identified themselves primarily as choreographers, composers, and playwrights
were also musicians (22 percent), dancers (12 percent), involved in theater pro-
duction (11 percent), and were actors (7 percent). Many of the visual artists
worked in more than one visual art form (27 percent) while others worked as
craft artists as well (9 percent). The most common second occupation for the
craft artists was the visual arts (16 percent), but there were also craft artists who
were writers (almost three percent).
An update of the New England study was recently undertaken, but only for
the state of Rhode Island (Alper and Galligan, 1999). The survey obtained
responses from over 400 artists residing in Rhode Island and the information
obtained was for 1997. Like the previous study, this one also found that the
majority of the state's artists (55 percent) worked at some income generating
activity other than their art at some point during the year. A little more than 45
percent held an arts-related job at some time, and almost 30 percent held a non
arts-related job. The evidence for simultaneous multiple jobholding again comes
from the number of weeks worked at the three labor market activities and sup-
ports the previous study's finding of significant simultaneous multiple
56 ' More Than Once in a Blue Moon
jobholding behavior among Rhode Island's artists in 1997. On average the state's
artists worked 40 weeks in their art, 19 weeks in arts-related activities, and 13
weeks in non arts-related work (Alper and Galligan, 1999, Table 8). The evidence
suggests that the dancers and choreographers (a single group in this study) were the
most likely to have been simultaneous multiple jobholders since the total average
number of weeks worked during the years was the highest for them. They were fol-
lowed by the writers, musicians, craft artists, visual artists, media artists, and the
actors in decreasing order of the likelihood of multiple jobholding.
Rhode Island's artists, like the artists in New England seventeen years earlier,
found the earnings from their second jobs to be a very important component of
their total income. On average Rhode Island's artists earned half their income
(50.4 percent) from their arts-related and non arts-related jobs. Arts-related
work was the most important of these second jobs accounting for almost one-
third their income (30.0 percent) while non arts-related work contributed an
additional 20.4 percent to total income. Work as an artist contributed, on aver-
age, 45 percent of the artists' income with the remainder accounted for by non
labor income.
There is also evidence from the Rhode Island survey that artists' responses to
economic incentives for having a second job is consistent with theory and stud-
ies of non artists. In 1997, Rhode Island's artists had an hourly wage rate of
$22.74, on average, from working in their art (Table 3.2). The estimated hourly
wage rate for arts-related work was $29.30, or almost 30 percent higher than
their wage from working as artists. This second job wage premium is important
in understanding why artists are multiple jobholders. The higher wage in the
arts-related work represents an opportunity cost to the artists for working in
their art. The higher it gets, the less time the artists are likely to spend at their
art. In fact for all the artists in this survey, with the exception of the musicians
and the actors (the other artist groups are: dancers, writers, visual artists, media
artists and craft artists), the estimated arts-related wage was greater than the
wage from their art work. The incentive to work outside their art form at an
arts-related job was greatest for the writers. Their hourly wage on their arts-
related work was estimated to be seven times greater than their arts wage. The
opportunity cost explanation for holding a second job is not as well supported
for non arts-related work. The estimated wage from non arts-related work was
$18.04, almost $5 per hour less than from working as an artist. Perhaps there
are other reasons for holding these jobs that explains why so many artists also
have non arts-related work during the year. The other factors could include
things such as health insurance, pensions, and other forms of non-monetary
compensation that are readily available from an employer. The estimated non
Moonlighting by American Artists 57
arts-related wage was greater than the arts wage tor dancers, writers and media
artists. It was not greater than the arts-related wage tor any of the artist groups.
In 1980 a special survey of authors was undertaken tor the Authors Guild
(Kingston and Cole, I9<S6). This survey, Columbia Survey of American Authors,
like other specialized surveys of artists, found that approximately 70 percent of
the authors surveyed had income from work other than their writing. Almost
halt (4(-> percent) held salaried positions in addition to writing, and almost 40
percent without regular non-writing positions worked as writers and in writing
related jobs such as translating and editing.
Another survey of artists was undertaken in I 989 tor eight cities and two areas
throughout the United States by the Research Center tor Arts and Culture at
Columbia University (Jettri, 1989). It, too, found that multiple jobholding was
common among the artists surveyed. The multiple jobholding rate for the surveyed
writers was approximately 50 percent (Alper, et al, 1996, Table 25, 50).
A survey of performing artists was undertaken in the early 1980s
(Ruttenberg, Friedman, Kilgallon &c Associates, 1981). It, like all the other
studies, found a significant amount of performers holding second jobs, regard-
less of whether they were actors, singers, dancers or musicians. The differences
they found were in where the performers were likely to hold their second jobs.
More than half the actors and singers worked in sales, clerical or service jobs,
while approximately one-fourth the musicians and one-third the dancers held
similar jobs (Kay and Butcher, 1996, 102).
A more recent survey of choreographers (Netzer and Parker, 1993) reported
that 80 percent of these artists held jobs in addition to their choreographer
work during the reference year.* Further, they spent twice as much time work-
ing in their non-choreographer jobs. Last, earnings from their choreography
work constituted from 14.7 to 30.6 percent of their total earnings, depending
on the city in which they worked.
In summary, direct surveys of artists have not measured the extent to which
artists hold multiple jobs in the same week, but have measured the extent to
which artists hold jobs in different occupations over the course of a year. They
have also documented the importance of non-artist jobs in artists' annual earn-
ings. It is clear that many, perhaps most, artists rely heavily on income from
non-artist jobs in a typical year. Thus surveys, such as the Census, which attrib-
ute all income to a person's "principal job" in a reference week very likely
overstate the financial returns to being an artist.
9. It is not indicated whether these jobs were exclusively in non-artistic occupations.
58
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Table 3.1
Sources of Artists' Income
(percent)*
Arts
Arts-Related
Non Arts-Related
Earnings
Earnings
Earnings
All Artists
41.0
30.3
18.6
Dancers
45.9
28.1
25.7
Musicians
38.1
35.4
20.8
Actors
70.8
7.4
11.0
Theater Production Personnel
48.9
32.3
10.7
Writers and Poets
23.9
35.3
25.3
Choreographers, Composers,
21.9
58.2
12.1
and Playwrights
Visual Artists
41.4
31.8
16.8
Media Artists
47.9
18.9
21.8
Craft Artists
48.1
22.1
18.7
*Rows are a percent of total income and do not sum to 100% because of non-labor income.
Source: Authors' calculations from Wassail, et. al., 1983, Table 22, 55.
Table 3.2
Rhode Island Artists'
Hourly Earnings by Occupation: 1997
Art Wage
Art-Related
Wage
Non Art-Related
Wage
All Artists
Dancers
Musicians
Actors
Writers
Visual Artists
Media Artists
Craft Artists
$22.74
$29.30
$18.04
$26.37
$45.42
$32.04
$27.69
$21.13
$15.49
$32.49
$25.38
$14.25
$4.47
$30.71
$18.20
$27.16
$32.85
$19.55
$13.84
$22.06
$21.24
$16.65
$31.07
$11.84
Source: Alper and Galligan, 1999, Table 10.
Moonlighting by American Artists
59
Percent
>
(/>
(/>
0)
3
CL
"D
O
CD
</>
(/>
o'
3
Q>_
■D
°S
? !
o »+
9- "
3' - k
(Q
7)
0)
1-+
60
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
3
o
F-J
•CI
'J
-J
•0
00
•ci
•Ci
CO
o
00
en
00
•a
■•0
o
•Cl
-o
o
o
c
> s:
— "O
>sr
Jobho
rtists b
O
3"
0)
3-
i=
CO
ro
2 <o
3
CL 77
(D CO
-i ^*-
fl>
(/>
Moonlighting by American Artists
61
FWc ent
(D
3
0)
CD
>
S
3-
1-
<-»■
en
n
(/>
a>
3
o
a-
O
Q.
3"
-n
D"
-T
(D
O
<-t-
3
Q.
co
0)
3
co
to
-o
10
-T
n>
(J
«-»■
rr>
(D
(/)
tf>
(/>
O
3
0)
</)
62
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
■
□
s
2
Qj
Oj
w
iT
"D
>
i
3.
01'
ft
111
0"
3
Qi
or
Moonlighting by American Artists
63
Percent
o
■vl
u
■vj
■•J
•vj
•Tj
o
■vj
as
O
as
Ln
O
o
so g
3"
"1
O
>-l-
CT
<<
Q.
co
71
0)
3
CD
en
o
a>
73
i-i-
64
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
■>■»■'
ft)
>
(/>
(/)
Q)
3
Q.
TJ
-n
O
(D
(/)
W
o'
3
O '+
5' o>
(Q
Q)
«-*
a*
n
■
a
<
<
■k.
3"
3-
»'
»■
fC
re
-O
>
ri
3
U1
01
1-*-
0'
3
Qj
or
Moonlighting by American Artists
65
S3
O
ui
S3
-vj
S.I
CD
SJ
*0
00
O
-0
00
00
*0
O
-c
SJ
m
o--
'■0
o
66 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
ui
Ln
O
O
■si
o
•si
■sj
ro
•vj
•sj
'■0
•vl
C/l
■si
-s|
CD
■"-J
•45
CO
O
O
CD
Ul
00
-fc.
-0
Ln
■si
'm'mMmmgunmmmmmmmmTm
a -A XX -V -Xl
mam
i ' '
uuu»tmmu».m(,<'»*M*».i
■A . -A ,xax\ \ ■.■■■■■■■ .■■,-. ■.■■■- ■■■■■■■. A ■■■■■•■, -. ■
i t s i 1 3 ; | i ; g i Q ; t s n a ; t 8 a m j. m Mi t, 8 1 jh : . ;.; ,;,
r, s mi s s ; s i n 1 1 n ; a|M y » ' ' g j ' j j g j g j g j ' c eezj
•-, g mi g * g i a i,g iu»,iii,ii a u.uuuyui^ nmiiii
arara6
iuu.nuinu.ut.uuu.uuu.hmMa
a_
V- '.'. , 'A', ^v-
III. • ■ I I
a
rfyn'fi 1 <■;'!■ | n gg gg | ; i j i v n yrryri-ip-virvp'vr '
~3
lUmiimMWHWlillHHiiitiiWiiiiWiMiHiWW . l *
i —
3
m,m,m,unKmmm,i,ini., :r, >
,,',,,',,,,,, ,777-1
mmgaiuusmmmuggu^c L
■■■■■■ ■■■■■■'•. A AX ■. ■■', ',\\ ■■ ■■■■ -AX ■■ -A A\ AN -As -. ■■ . AX .1
an i n m u ; aw \n i v t iuyu\t ntn'm r
, ■-. AV AAA -A ■■■■ Xa .aX .XX a. -A ■-■■■ .XXI
J i
h
■ ' ■ ■ .■■■■ i , ■ ~
. ,'. . ... . ■■. AAA. A. .-..-. .... .... . , . A-.A--.--.XX-.Xl
M;!!inii,i;Hi;naiMiM{H?ni!n?Ufnia
1223 i
>, AA ■■■\\ AX ..\\ AV .V-. .-A aYAW A\ AV -A\ a\ '-.Vl
n i miiiiiiimii i iiiiim i i i i i n i ii iiii —
{nnmmn»nn«'nH<!nTTrHn. ... ,,L
^ Zj •■■■ -^l ,
• , " , ".'1
■ . ' -a 1 : ' ,, .. . ' ■ . . ,\v-.\x i
i
n ■ □ a a a
i> '-n -t- i.o f-o — •
tn 0^ Q 1 " 0^ 0> O*
+ (j- (In -K U> rxj
en en oi Oi cn
^^H^rtrtAfJtfJfJJJj^ ^^rfJ^US J ^M^^WuSft ftAW
rs:
V)
00
Moonlighting by American Artists
67
Percent
ui
Ul
O
ui
O
O
N.1
<l
■vj
•vl
UI
-J
OD
«
o
CO
o
00
ui
O
oo
k0
s0
Ln
*0
"■J
;.,". .,v.," ;::'.. :.,:. , ;::;—^i
^
;.;f,v;.vy < -y!
...i.
Tr
■■■^p
*- — "~ -•— ~ '•■••!
'Tiimiiiiiwii
» V .«-*.*.> * ~ « * - » ■ ■■ ■ . . . *■ * » '' « I ....... . .
IZZ3
■ f ''" .■ * ' ■ - .- ' '
msmymmm smsBlsnt
gj
>}•;>};• ,'> ys; y>
/AWiV/iYMAWiY/MM
-, n-i-. _
T L
sZBZaZBSZ
>N : -.\\-,NVA^
'J//J//J/S;/. '.■-'. ■■:.■/ S ?//.?// f //A
.^'l'h ill "ii * 1 II
\ -, ii\l y V> ■ >■» 3
SS
■: ■: : : -:■: • ■• : :-r~^]
-
ZI3_
■■-■-■■-■:■■:■-:■-■- ■:■:■■-., :■:■:■■ :■:,:■:■:■:■ ■■,:■:■:■:■ ■:■:■:■:■ ,:■:■:■:■:■
\mJAW&AMM$4tM£4
' ' ' ' ' '-"'^''v k 'v '-'■' ' '^
twvwwm
S •■'■', ';,;-',
":s;,;i
W/tmMMi
' ,., ' ,,,,. ": ,,. " ,,, ' ' ,, ,,"zu
>//^///> < ///V/,7/'/'/1
■
D
□
3
UJ
1
3
UI
ro
3"
3
D
0D
BT
-
\ >
I £
i o
\ (/>
I o
\ 3"
O
O
3 (Q
(D
? !
O '+
Q. W
5' <o
CD
0)
l-H
CD
68 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
•<-J
<X>
o
CD
en
o
CD
*0
o
o
Ln
NO
o
' i i ii ii I i i ■ i ii 1 1 i 1 1 ii i i ' i i i ■ i i i ' 1 1 I m i i M il ii ii i ■ n f
e *«P'
"..-■ ' ' ' I
i . ■ . n 1
... ii.ii
i i ■ i ■
i , i\ mnwuiSiUnj \
.■■■■.....,.. I.. ,.,.,. „ .. ; ; ■ ■ ■ ; ■■ „ l
3-. o>
w «- O
CT 3" 3.
<< o
§3-
Moonlighting by American Artists
69
Percent
S3
O
<l
■vj
to
■vl
•sj
O
CD
■-0
CO
o
CD
t/l
*0
CO
-o
V3
SJ
so
Ul
so
sO
cr-
70
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
O
O
■vj
ro
•a
-J
On
■vj
CD
*o
o
as
QD
-o
-o
NO
TTmnrrr^
ED :
vysjvsjrs*ss*ss*SAMSs/rss&
,' 'I
(jn
I — — r ■ — - — - — — — v ' ■■ • ■■ ■' ■■ " ■■■■! '
'///;//; v;,vj/;;y;A
D
■
□
D
Q
<
-0
>
1-*-
171
(D
R
^-
r
-!-
n>
Qj
-1
a
>
3.
&
(A
-»• —■ r-\
?il
S 3- -*
SO M
Q.
3*
(A
Moonlighting by American Artists
71
Hours per Week
rsj
O
Co
o
CO
01
O
LI
O
VI
o
VI
VJ
Vl
to
-sJ
J>
o
vl
sj
vl
-J
vl
O
V|
CO
VJ
SJ
CD
o
S3
CO
U1
S3
CO
S3
S3
-O
S3
sD
sj
S3
sj
vl
d: c
C3
lis
o o g
o «5
3 •*
Q> i—
« 8-
72
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Hours per Week
S3
O
S3
S3
S3
■xJ
S3
S3
-sj
S3
S3
■sj
S3
■sj
00
S3
■sj
o
ss
03
o
S3
03
S3
CO
S3
S3
S3
S3
S3
S3
S3
LF1
S3
S3
SJ
S3
■sJ
I
o
>
c
2.
o
0)
Q.
Q_
o
3"
-^
o
O
3
w
— *
J>
J)
O
o
o
3
3
0)
Q.
to
O
o-
Moonlighting by American Artists
73
Percent
o
o
o
o
o
CD
o
c
^1
o
•si
rs>
•si
-si
SO
-si
O
sg
&
■si
-si
*0
00
S3
-si
SO
00
o
-a
0D
CO
■>0
•o
-c
o
<!
SO
-si
74
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
o
Percent
U
o
o
Ln
O
O
CO
01
lllllllllilllllllllllllllll
*0
GO
■>0
lllllllllllllllllllllll
-o
o
I
III llllllltllf Ilflllll
•0
lllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllll
o
□
D
■
□
n
<
TJ
>
m
ID
— *
3-
c
a.
n
m
Qi
■n
^~
-1
O
>
3>
01
>
01
l
in
LO
ID'
3
o
3
Art
Arti
«/» — •
#-•■ </>
O
3"
0)
:+.
■D c
CO
a
en
-j
=r U)
•■
a
n
(/>
Moonlighting by American Artists
75
Percent
I.'
c
■
D
n
■
□
$
i
m
3
$
8
5'
s:
^'
! i
a
in
=1
If!
3
n
3
Hi
w
^+
71
CD
ft
U)
o
3
o _
>e.S
3: 5= co
r+ ST — *•
</) <1> ^
O
O -
3"
O
Q.
3'
MgOMMMMOMMMdMMMMHBMMMflMMi
76
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
vi
'0
vl
v|
v|
VI
■vj
vi
on
-O
CD
-O
mm
iitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiii
a d
£ ID
m
a
ST
1? I ■ s- S ' "8
3
in
j IS
73
£
(A
o
s
o - o
a> ^ 3"
y> c ■
</> 3= "*
5" -a"
I, 05 eo
i o
o-
o
S
5"
Moonlighting by American Artists
77
Percent
O
Ui
O
o
(-1
o
o
o
o
c
o
•vJ
CO
<5
en
CO
o
CO
o
CD
Ln
<3
en
■J5
-fc.
o--
■05
78
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
O
--J
S3
sj
•xJ
-0
o
o
-sj
sd
GO
S3
SO
SO
o
SD
00
o
CO
SO
-o
Ul
o
S3
SD
O
OJ
o
o
o
iiii mii ii
'nnsmnngmummmra
inniisyHissisnuM
inimmmiiHUHi
ni!li!ii!HiSiHl!llil
iniiinil
i'nmmsf i
i i D s i a i i n s i i i i ti i j 1 1 h
ii!i!nininniHn!!iniiH
w
inmnnnnmrnnisimi
ff
1 r
niimmmmmmirm
1 —
j
ms'nHniSIJiliHiHHill'fTTTl
?
TTTWini^mmrnmn
3
_
=3
™ '
■ —" ■• " * "•" *■■■■
nn'mmnnrimmmH
— r-
an nnnnnmninniim
— 1 1 i i
03
O
□
a
■
D
o
3"
en
Li
or
>
3,
in
^
ID
3
o
IT
n
^
3"
</)
Moonlighting by American Artists
79
o
O
o
a-
o
00
o
o
o
<1
VJ
o
VJ
vj
Ul
>0
vj
-U
<>
en
-O
vj
0*
VJ
^J
<i
VJ
CO
<5
v|
CD
o
>0
CD
Ul
CO
o
S3
•o
VJ
W
(t>
o
•■+
o
T>
-*
o
o
-r
-^1
B)
>
(/)
— ^
rX
fl>
O
GO
f*
O
ro
U)
3
Cl
o
□
■
□
-D
U-i
m
5'
=;
9
&
*
n>
fP
d
3
5"
3
ft
3
It
i-+
80
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
o
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
-o
••J
to
-o
Ln
--J
CD
--J
O
CO
O
"0
tn
0s
v0
i
o
■o o
i* O 3"
o
0)
O IO
3 ro
Q.
o
CT
D
■
n
-o
tn
n
9
&
(ti
(0
(D
3
3
T3
3
5
a.
•-*-
Moonlighting by American Artists
81
Percent
S3
•vj
o
NO
vj
S3
VJ
S3
S3
>o
vj
-kJ
S3
CO
S3
VJ
S3
O
CO
O
so
CO
LI
S3
CO
o
S3
S3
S3
-fc.
S3
S3
SO
S3
0-
S3
S3
vj
to
O
O
O
O
o
^\\\\\\\\\\V.\yA\\\V\VA\^\\\\\\\\\Vv\.VxVs.^
..,„ i:
nuiuiui
SSSSSS5SSSSSSSSSSSSS:^SSS5SSSSSSSSSSS55SSSSSSSS5SSSSSSSS3
55SSSSSSS5S5SSSSSS3S3SS?SSSSSSSSSSS$SSSSSSSS)
■■,., v.^ XT^
.VAV\\\\V\\\V\V^\^\\\V\\A\\\r.\VA^\V\VV\.V\\\.\l
\\S\\S\\\\\<v\^\^^^
iiii'Siiiiiii U,i ii.iiLtmiii .
%A\V\\\\\\\V^\V^^^^^^^
^\Y-A\\\\V\\V\\V<^^^
\YAYA\\yA\^aya\vayaya\s\^^^
; \i i i i a ,' i s s i,i i 1 1
npnnnnnnnp
£
2untm
nisiiii»;rr n
X
A i i ,S i i i i i \ i A i i
£
i i a i? a i > t : ■ .-. -. : j •
3
TTT7
1 1 i > I i I
WMPr ; 1
!iiiilil
^B^E5SSSSSgSSS5SS^^^^^S55^55SA55^SB^^^S3
iS\\\\\\\\S\\VS^^^
\\S\\\VW,\V 'AVs 1 xVv\\V^\^V^v\WJ?a
va\Y\^s\^\s^^^
.^^^^^^Y^^YA^A^^^^A^^^ ^^^
- S\\\\YA\\\\\\YxV-W^
3
Q.
C
>< O
£ (D CO
~ 5 io
w ° w
Q.
O
; W.Ui.Ui
l\YY\\\\Y-A\\\Y%YY\\^^^
S%NVsV^\%NN\N>\N^^^^^
v\\\Y-A\\\\\\V\\\W^^
S^^V\\V\\V\\KS<S\V\^^^
82
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
-o
o
--J
-O
en
-sJ
--J
CD
--J
-o
CD
o
CO
CO
ro
o
Percent
o
±
±1
I «llf
„ .:,: : ] ,
A\\\V\\V\\V <VS<\\VV\V\V\\V\^\\V\\'^1
lillllllllllllllllllllli
is:
:W^V^\X\\^^^^
S\\\^^\\S\y^^^^
BBsaBSSsassBsaBB^^Bs^^ga^^ggs^^^gsBgssrfg
-i—
mSg5555SB5^m^gggS55^5^gaB^^^Bg^ggBS^
*:■:■:■:•>:■«■«■>>;
ti * i • 1 1 tit i 1 1 § «*t §
S\v\\v\<\\\\\^v\w^^
W^V^W VXVW^V^^^
IIIIII1IIIIIIIIIII tllllll
gssB5aBam^^s8BSBB5^BBmas^Ba^BB5aasaa ;
"1
Iflllltlltlllllitlllllllllllli
^V\V\^\Vs\\\\<\\^^^
m
en
o
o
XVVV>»iXXXXXXV^VXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVV^^
a
c
-°$
iS 2,0)
W CO 3,
O'i "
o
mi mini mi in
i\\\\\\v<\v\\v^\\v^^
ffl
W^^WXVVVVVA^^^
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
jaB^aS8BBa^a^SBSaSgB^^5SS^BBaSSBB^BSgSgBS$BaaaSM
E3
D
D
■
■
a.
(IS
m
It
Oi
3
ri-
ft
1
*-n
to"
&
?
3
33
|
St
3
*
m
3
-D
C
Moonlighting by American Artists 83
Percent
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
'-J
■sj
■.■J
»0
-O
CD
•vj
s0
GD
O
00
OS
o
-fc.
en
-o
-J
... ,. .., , ...;,. ; ,. .. ..j
.. -. . •. . . . •■■ -. ... •■■■■ . •..••]
r • • • • • •• ••••••: - '••■•• --..■- • • "i
[.. :: . :: .. . : .:.:.:.:. : . : . : . :: ... : . : . :: .. :\: ,)
■. c :■■%■:> ^ - > ■ : w ? ■. ■: .' \ i :■ >. j :
^ms s as s^gsssss -w ass^s w^vwcti
±
±
±
.:\::>;:.:\.....>::,...:,. : .:; . . .:.:..:.. :.s : ..:i\
1
..■, ^ ■■..-.. ,
X
:. :;,":.:.::.:» . \ ;:;: : , ::;: .. ;, . :..,., :,: :■:.. v. 1 ...:.:..:,::
X
r
"'"" l "
zzzzz:
z^ziz
E
—J
'■ • • ■■■■•■■■
I
XV SS \s\\\\V-\\ X,' x'-xx-xv w^v \v ^- Xox'xxxv Xv X'l
h
Z3
ZJ-
x.xxxxx\xxxxxXvX\xxxxxnX\\xx^
TTT^TTTy^TT^T7TT^TT^™n
I
f-XXXX^VX^'^K^Xxlx^^
i i r 3
j
x:;,: '.. ';,:..: : . : j
.... ...
. ,
±
ITT]
y, ■ : t ' ■ ' ! ; .; : ; ■ : 1 1 ■ ; ;. ■ ' ■ : : ■ ■ ' ; i. ■ : : v . ; : v ■ ! ' ; " ' : ■ > . ■ '■ ■ : i ■ v ■ ! s S : J 1
iillH^ti>»ilil>llil».l|ll>-|l.lM>li>il
S2
: xx 1 xv x xxxx-' xv xx ' ■ :■■< ■-■-■ ' ■ . ■' ■■ -: xx' xv' x x ■ x ■ ■■, ■ ■■ i
t S ? A i- >. >. S >■ i > :< : : > ti 3 a
xxxvXXx :\\ x xx.:- x x: -: • ■. : v.. : x, : x : , xx xx. : xxl
■ -. ■ ,-, ■; , r, ■ . , ■ , : : ; ; i-,,-; ■■■■■ i ,,..-. . , ■;,;■ , , i
: ■- ■■■ -. .- .S f ^ A V A -i. «■
g^s^^^gss^^^^^^ss^s^^^
k
^^^^^-^■^^^^^^^^^^^
*M\V\VSM\VWWM^^^
h
SE
s^^^^^^^^s^s^^^^
ks
o
n n □ □
n < "o >
i 2' 1 |
ED Hi r
o
o
>
sis
"I
'^JV^lVwv^nA^'^l^vi^'lftvv^J^v^A«ftflft
84
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
en
O
o
so
"•J
-sj
*0
o
■U
■sJ
-O
■hi
s0
--J
<l
CO
CD
O
«0
CO
CD
s0
*0
<1
SO
'■0
s% : n\vxvv\^^^^^^
\v-w^\vxv,\vs^^^^^^
vv-xv -Ay w v; !v >ww^^^^^^w^^^^^^^v^w^^.:^^i :
vs^^^^w^^^^ ^,vv^.v\^'^s^^v^' SS 5SSS SS SS ^mm vsmw n< \v^
\V\W,\V- \VW\WW \V \V\^V\\^\VV\VV\V^^^^
^vvm^v^vv^^^^^^
SSS^^SSSSSSSS^^SgSSS^SSSS5SSSSSSSSSSS g5^^^^^
^\^W\Vs\\^W^^^^^
0>
o
■4-
o
oo
o
o
o
■4-
o
o
■+-
a
1 i
D
zzr
f
^\^v^\yvv^^^^
I
h
±
I",."," ",,",, ,", . /' .. v: : 1 : :' . . " ,",",:",", :nr
^zr
■
^KW^^ ^SS^kS^^
ivviw&k^^w^^^^^
^TD
mvmmmm^mmmmmv^ t
i^x^v^s^x;^^^
^ys\V\\^\V\\V\V^^^ ,
L
a
o
-4
v\v%\v\\v\\v\\\\^^^^^^
y\\v\\\v^\\\\^w^^^
37
□ □
9 £
3" c
CD Qi
□ D
-o >
3, d-
+
sssss^^s^^^ss^sssssssss^ss^i
i
>
o =r. 3-
3-. — "
o • ^
3 i_ CO
§^
3 3" °>
s O
B £
3
to
(A
Moonlighting by American Artists
85
Years
<i
Ui
o
o
-si
«0
-sJ
»0
O
GO
CO
<0
^^^^^^^^^^^^K'<xS^^^^^
I ! i ! ! ! i < ! ! > I ' 1 1 ' i I ! ! i ' M 1 ! " I ' ! ! ! i " " ' u ■" ' " ' ' i < ! M > > M ! " ' "
liiiiiiiiiiiii^i^iiiiiUiiiintUiiiiHiiliilliilllitSJhii::
^y^ ^v.^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^. v^sa ^y^^^^s^ssr^n
5235
l:
'
r. r^^^-^, r- 1 . ■ . 1 1 , r- , " " , rV r- r- 1 -, 1 , I , , . , . , , , . i -^-1
. ! ,U ; ', i .' > , ,U ,' ,^ i f U ^ i i , ! i ; f, '. , ! i) i i : ^ I , ! ,', , . : ) . ,, , , , ■ . , ,..,,, , ,,,„;,. I
»nmm;HumJmimsnmunHhuu; ■: ■.■^iiummmmnH
J
LiiU
mnipuninpiUiHiitinUniUniUttiitthnsHinniHtHiUruna
h
v- i n j i n u n i n n * n i n > ^ i H ? >> V ' '; r ; r- ' ? ' — ' -''M- rillllinPIIIIItflPITfllll
------- 1 ■ - - - - - -j s • '■ ■ ■ - - ^ * \ - ■ s ■ • •= < ■■ | - ■ ■ • < • =• •■ $ i *- -■ -^ -■ ■• •■ * \ '■ * ■- '• ■ •■■ ■■ ■■ \ ■ ■• ■•■ ■ ■- •■ ■ ■■■ \' •■■•■-•« < '■ \
1
^\\\\^\\W^^^
I
— i 1 1
.. i i
! i < i j 5 S } S i : ! . ! •>.{ \ H V " ! i i :" i < i i \ i '■ i H i '■: i >■ \ i\ ' I \ i- J I "i 5 H J J J J8 i\ \i \i i %{ \ V { \i I
-^-
. . ^ . . .
-^^^^^^^
FT!
niiiiMMiUUiJMI^hlNJMHn^UtMIHrHMlNlTTTniTl
<s\\ss
islMiMiHinNlMlH^JiUMlMjUMlNJNHJM^ONINUgNJMnnTTTTTTT
-i
>
9 -m
Q} ^
3 En
S.f »
(/> re 3-
Out)
TO U
o J N
(Q
(/)
mnn\\\\mnnm\mi\nmm\m%m\Minttm%mtii{mm\
liliiitiiiiiiili.i'iiii.iilii
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
5c
D
□
u
□
Q
<
T3
>
01
(D
—i
3"
c
ri
n«
Q'
^
\\m\\\m\\\\\mm\\nmm\mmmmmmmmmm\m\\\m\
86
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Years
O
in
■ . ■ . ■ . ■ . ■ _ ■ . ■ _ ■ . ■ . ■ _ ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ _ ■ ■ . ■ _ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ - . ■ . ■ _ ■ ■ _ ■ _ ■ _ ■ _ ■ _ ■ . ■ _ ■ _ ■ . ■ ■ . ■ . ■ _ ■ _ ■ . ■ . ■ ■ . ■ ■ _ ■ ■ . ■ . ■ _ i
■ -.-■-. :-.■, ..-.:■:■.. , '■. -■ ' . -. ■■■ .■■..■.■..,.■....;-■ . X , ■.-. -3
1 - :...■. : . : , :: .. . . ' . . ■ ■ ■
UP
• ■"- ■ ■!- ■• - :n : av " v v^sv ; : ■; ::: ■■ : ■ ■ ■ : ■-. : • . ■ :-: :: :- ■ . : ■ ; ; ■ : : : ■ ;-m '
^\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^^^^
■ ■ . ■ _ ■ ■ . ■ _ ■ . ■ ■ - ■ . ■ _ ■ . ■ . ■ . ■ . ■ . ■ ■ . ■ ■
«0
-■J
-O
--••: ,, :::-:: : ::: , : ,,, :::: , :: ,,, :: , :::: :. 3
■ ""^^mv^M^^^msw'"^^
«0
CD
m
-O
CD
o
o
-t-
O
na
uuu<u\uuuuuuuuuuuuu\uuuuui\uun
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^\\\^^^^
. . I ;.;•..;:::;; ; ; iTTT?
iiiiiiiSimin
;:-:--:;;-;;i
k
.. ^ ..>:..., . — i .- -. _
■• ■' ^ ■ .::: z :;:_,: : ■ ■ -■■■■.■■■ I
,U— :
mnnnn
"::v:rrr:
mi
■ . ; ■ , ; ; i ;
'■"•■:■■■ !
mnmmm
.V:-'''^".^ ; ~^
:■■■:-■■■::■ " : ; ■ : '■■■■■■"""" "■■/■■■■/■ ""■-■■■-■- -:';^
;;;;i;;;ii!;:iiii;;<<;;i;;:;;;;;;?;;;;ii-;;i<:;i;ii;5;;s;;;;i;;;i;iiii{< ;
J
i;;;;!^;;;;^;;;;^;;;;;;: ::;;;;;;>;;;: jiii^iiiiiiiii i^iiiiiiiiitjtstiutttttiti
™^av^v^v/;mvn^, ... ,-,:-. . . . .;;. ;vv,v;;.;j
mm;msmmmmmmm '■;■;' EgnmHB *;mm»ms^^;vm;;;;sm:;i
i
V * .. ' ._ ' .. ■ -. ' .. ■ -. ■ -. ■ -. v r v
;;;;>;;i!iiiii!il!t))i?;;.:;;:;i.:;:;;ii»i;!::;;;;;;^;; ; ;:i))i;i l
^^tt^^^^^^w^^w;;^^x
3
■uu<uuuuu\uuuuui\uiu<\\uuuuuu\
^\\\\\\\\\\\\s\s\\^^
I:-::-.::-:;: 'O; 1 - ■ ^ ' :,': ': ; ^ ^ ' ; : : ' ; ~ T
^■^■;-:;^:.^;0v:w;-^-^^w:-^w^
; I ; ; i i ; ; i . '. i i ; i I ; ■; i \ \ . i i . ■ i . . ; ; i ; i i ; . i i i i i f
?ww^^ttw^^^ : ,\\\s^-3 :
"•"••;;
liiiiiiiiijiiiiiniiiiiiii'ijiiiiiiiijijii ijlnjijiiiiifn ;
I -
mmummmummuunmmmummmmimmmmi
na
, _. ....... ..... . ... , — — ^
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^\\^\\^^^^
b_
: ; i j ; i j ; ■ ■ ■ ', n s s ? ; i )i ; ; ? ; ? i s i s i ! ; i ; ; ^ ; i i ; i ; ; ; ; 1 1 n ? s s s t ; i i v- ■ > i ; ; ; ; s i ; > > ; ; s s ; ; ;
\^\\\v\\\\\s\^v\\\\^^^
3:
o
D
□
□
n
<
TJ
>
=r
01
c
3.
R
(5
Qi
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;! iiiiijiiijiiii;;!;;;; aum iiuiiiiiit.iiiuiuuiiiiiuttuiiiia.irnm '.
Moonlighting by American Artists
87
Percent
o
CO
o
a
on
O
O
O
3
>
2;
0)
</>
•-H
.-1-
0)
^
CO
O
0)
■D
0)
.-1-
c
to
r4-
CO
^
CO
>
O
T
CO
J>
O
3
Q.
cn
r-t-
3
cn
CO
to
88
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
>
■
9 S
5 ^
? T3 Q)
> S" 3-
— »_ W
> 2- W
J5.o
d'
CHAPTER 4 MOONLIGHTING BY ARTISTS IN
OTHER COUNTRIES
The practice of multiple jobholding by American artists has been clearly
established through the CPS and special surveys of artists. As has been shown,
it is a behavior that has existed, more or less to the same degree, for the past
twenty-seven years through periods of economic growth and decline, and
changes in public policy toward the arts. What's not clear is whether the expe-
riences of American artists are unique to the social, cultural, political and
economic environment in this country, or if they are replicated in other coun-
tries throughout the world.
Government support for the arts in the United States is quite limited relative
to support in other countries throughout the world. On a per capita basis the
United States tends to be found at the bottom of most rankings, especially for
direct expenditures on the arts. In a study of 1987 government expenditures,
Throsby estimates that in the United States all levels of government combined
spent about $3.30 per person in direct support of the arts. This was about
twenty percent of the amount spent in the next closest country in the study, the
United Kingdom (Throsby, 1994, Tables 1, 21). In countries like the
Netherlands, where social support for the arts is very important to the popula-
tion, per capita expenditures were ten times larger. Schuster, in a study for the
National Endowment for the Arts, finds that the United States ranks above only
the United Kingdom when indirect expenditures (e.g., tax subsidies) are
included (Schuster, 1985). While this more optimistic view may be preferable,
indirect subsidies for the arts are likely to have little direct impact on artists
since they tend to benefit non-profit arts institutions rather than artists.
There are several reasons to believe that government support for individual
artists in the United States has only gotten worse in recent years. Primary among
them is that spending by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has
declined by more than forty percent in nominal dollars from 1985 to 1997
(NEA, 1998). Clearly, the decline in real dollars is even larger. At the same time
the United States population, and the number of people working as artists, has
grown considerably. Also, the history of grants to individual artists, which the
NEA initiated in 1967 with 187 grants to individuals in fiscal year 1968 (NEA,
no date, 21), has worsened considerably. Currently only three programs are left:
a traditional grant program for individual artists in literature, and two honorific
programs for folk and traditional arts and jazz artists. In its 1997 fiscal year the
90 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
NEA granted only 53 awards directly to artists in these programs at a cost of
$960,000, or about one-percent of its budget for the year.
In countries throughout the world where grants to individual artists are more
extensive and more generous, grants to artists have a greater potential to influence
their labor market behavior. Finland, for example, provides grants to its artists —
ndividually and "working groups" of artists — that are designed to provide tax free
income equivalent to the after tax income of the average member of the workforce
(Heikkinen, 1998, 113). These grants are available to artists for up to five years.
In 1996 almost 20 percent of Finnish artists received grants from the government
(Heikkinen, 1998, Table 1, 114). The Finnish policy makers see the "primary func-
tion of grants is usually supposed to be the same as in non-arts work, that is to buy
time for arts work." (Heikkinen, 1999, 19.) The basis for the support is "the idea
of ensuring the prerequisites of artistic work for artists in a situation of limited
markets and very few sources for private support. The idea is to free artists from
the constraints of the markets." (Heikkinen, 1999, 18)
In Canada, artists in most disciplines can also apply for individual grants which
differ in value depending on whether the artist is an "established" artist, a "mid
career" artist, or an "emerging" artist. The more established the artist the larger is
the potential grant. The established visual artist is able to obtain a grant of
$34,000 (Canadian) while the maximum grant available for emerging artists is
$5,000. In its 1997 fiscal year, the federal arts agency in Canada awarded 1,102
grants directly to artists expending $12,522,253 that was approximately 14 per-
cent of the agency's total revenues for the year (Canada Council).
This chapter will examine the multiple jobholding behavior of artists in five
countries. Two of them, the Netherlands and Finland, have histories of consid-
erable government support for the arts and their artists, and the other three,
Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, provide more support than in the
United States but not at the level of the former. Similar to the United States, the
information on multiple jobholding among artists in these countries is primarily
obtained from special surveys of artists and therefore is subject to the same
strengths and weaknesses of this method of data collection. The most trouble-
some ones for comparative purposes are the limited numbers of artistic
occupations usually covered by any single survey, and the possible lack of a rep-
resentative sample of artists included in the survey.
Multiple jobholding among artists in Canada is confirmed by two surveys
undertaken in the late 1970s. One was a survey of visual artists (Bradley, no
date); the other was a survey of freelance writers (Harrison, 1982). In both sur-
veys the vast majority of these Canadian artists worked at some other income
Moonlighting by Artists in Other Countries 91
generating activity besides producing their art. Only 20 percent of the visual artists
surveyed were self-employed full-time artists without any other labor force attach-
ment (Bradley, nd., 26). Fully 30 percent reported that they were full-time artists
with additional part-time attachments to the labor force, while another 7 percent
indicated that they were full-time in both their arts activities and supplemental
labor force activities. The largest group of visual artists, 44 percent, identified
themselves as part-time artists with varying degrees of attachment to the non-arts
labor force. The visual artists who were not multiple jobholders were found to be
older than those who were multiple jobholders (Bradley, 34).
Multiple jobholding among freelance writers in Canada was somewhat less
common with 63 percent holding an additional full-time or part-time job along
with their writer job (Harrison, 1982, 79). Four out of ten Canadian freelance
writers worked at full-time jobs along with writing, and almost 30 percent of
the full-time writers worked at part-time jobs to supplement their incomes as
well. The likelihood of multiple jobholding differed by writing genre. Poets
were the most likely (almost 90 percent) and non-fiction writers the least likely
(about 55 percent) to have second jobs.
The findings of a more comprehensive and more recent survey of artists in
Australia undertaken in 1988 (Throsby and Thompson, 1995) identify very
similar patterns. Almost three-quarters of all the artists surveyed held some
other job along with their artistic work (Throsby and Thompson, Table 2, 5).
As in the United States and Canada, the proportion of artists who were multi-
ple jobholders varied by artistic discipline. Almost 90 percent of the dancers
held some other job, making them the most likely to do so, while approximately
60 percent of the craft artists were multiple jobholders. Of those who worked
outside their art, 12 percent held both arts-related jobs (e.g., teaching in their
art form and arts administration) and non-arts jobs sometime during the year.
Dancers who worked outside their art form were the most likely to have held
both types of jobs (almost 40 percent), while crafts artists were the least likely.
Australian actors who worked outside of acting were the most likely to have
held second jobs that were not related to their art (42 percent). Composers were
the least likely to do so (11 percent) and the most likely to also have worked in
a job related to their primary artistic occupation (PAO).
An even more recent survey in Australia, undertaken in 1993, suggests a con-
tinuation of the same patterns of multiple jobholding. Visual artists were found
to be slightly more likely than craft artists to work at some other job outside
their art (80 percent versus 75 percent). In either case, more than three-quarters
of these Australian artists held some other job during the year (Bardez and
92 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Throsby, 1997). Of those who worked outside their art, about 60 percent of
both the visual and craft artists worked solely at arts-related jobs. The other
multiple jobholders were almost equally split between those who only held non-
arts jobs and those who held both arts-related and non-arts jobs (Bardez and
Throsby, 1997, Table 13, 17). Even though comparable information on other
Australian artists is not reported, information on the amount of time worked
provides additional evidence of multiple jobholding by Australia's other artists
in 1993 (Throsby and Thompson, 1994). Taken together, all Australian artists
were found to have worked for an average of 47 hours per week (Throsby and
Thompson, 1994, Table 14, 22). This is clearly more than full-time according
to accepted definitions of full-time work schedules. They spent an average of
nine of those hours associated with non-arts work. Writers had the longest
workweek (50 hours) and spent the most time in non-arts work (15 hours),
while dancers had the shortest workweek at 37 hours but spent 10 of those
hours in non-arts work. (The dancer's workweek may not reflect unpaid prac-
tice time.) Additionally, both surveys found that many artists were multiple
jobholders within the arts as well. The artists spent, on average, three hours per
week in "creative work" in second arts fields in 1993.
The evidence on artists' multiple jobholding in the United Kingdom is sup-
portive of the findings already described for other countries. The reports either
deal with the amount of time spent at various income generating activities, as
in some of the Australian reports, or the sources of artists' incomes. All the sur-
veys of artists in the UK are from the late 1980s or early 1990s (Towse, 1996,
Appendix 1) and are for different parts of the country. A survey of Welsh artists
found that they spent, on average, two-thirds of their time working in their pri-
mary arts occupation, but they also spent the remaining one-third in arts-related
and non arts work (Towse, 1996, 13). Similarly, Scottish artists averaged twelve
hours per week teaching in addition to the 46 hours per week they spent work-
ing as artists and in arts-related work (Towse, 1996, 13). A 1994/1995 survey
of visual artists from throughout the United Kingdom found that only 1 1 per-
cent earned all their income from working as artists and 60 percent of them
earned less than half their income from working as artists (O'Brien, 1 998, Table
8, 41). Additionally, fully one-fifth of visual artists indicated that teaching was
their most important source of income, and an additional 16 percent identified
work that was not related to their art as the most important source of their
income (O'Brien, 1998, Table 9, 41).
The Netherlands, unlike most countries, has had a long history of support
for artists, especially its visual artists. After World War II a national policy,
Moonlighting by Artists in Other Countries 93
known .is BKR, was implemented to provide visual artists with a secure income
and to isolate them from the "crudeness of the marker" (Rengers, 1998, 56).
One result of this policj was a significant increase in the number of artists in
the |9~0s. Since then the policy has been modified so that today a major crite-
rion tor support is the quality of the art. Even with the extensive support from
the government, a survey of visual artists in the Netherlands found that while
all had earnings in 1995 from working as artists, more than one-third earned
income from teaching and more than one-quarter had earnings from work unre-
lated to the arts (Rengers, 199<S, Table 2, 61 ). This would certainly suggest that
the Dutch artists, too, are multiple jobholders. Additional information tor 1996
and 1997, from the same survey, reaffirmed the finding that almost one-quarter
of Dutch artists had non arts earnings along with their arts earnings (Poot and
van Puffelen, 1999,40).
As already discussed, Finland is another country that provides a considerable
portion of its artists with direct government support. Yet, recent surveys of fine
artists, crafts and design artists, and actors and dancers in Finland undertaken
over the period 1993-1996 found a considerable amount of multiple jobhold-
ing among them (Karhunen, 1998). Among the Finnish fine artists only 21
percent worked only in their primary arts occupations (Karhunen, 1998, Table
2, 151), and fully 60 percent indicated "multiple employment status" at the
time of the interview. Additionally, one-third of the fine artists indicated that
they worked as an artist and in an arts-related job that, as in most other coun-
tries, primarily was teaching art. Approximately 40 percent of these artists had
also worked in both arts-related jobs and non-arts jobs during the survey period
(Karhunen, 1998, 154). A considerably smaller proportion of actors and
dancers, only 16 percent, identified themselves as having a "multiple employ-
ment status." This may reflect the willingness of governments at all levels in
Finland to support theater, even though these subsidies have diminished in
recent years. The craft and design artists fit somewhere between the fine artists
and the actors and dancers in terms of multiple jobholding. Approximately 30
percent indicated that they had "multiple employment status" at the time of the
survey, and almost one-quarter had worked in non-artistic occupations, prima-
rily for economic reasons, sometime during the year (Karhunen, 1998, 154). A
survey of Finnish musicians who had graduated from music school found that
12 percent earned income from working in either arts-related or non-arts jobs
(Karhunen, 1998).
From this brief review of research and available information it appears that one
of the "constants" of artists' careers, regardless of the country and its policies
94 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
toward support of its artists, is that many artists work at more than one income
generating activity during the year. It is also true that these multiple jobs are
often held at the same time. Unlike multiple jobholding for most workers, the
second or third income generating activity is more often than not completely
unrelated to the artist's primary occupation. This seems to be true in countries
that provide relatively little direct government support for its artists, such as the
United States, and in those that provide quite a considerable amount of support
directly to its artists.
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
Drawing upon annual information in the Current Population Survey for a
period of almost 30 years, this study documents what several direct surveys of
American artists had already uncovered — that American artists are more likely
to hold multiple jobs than the average worker. The CPS data consistently show
that artists moonlight more frequently than workers in most other occupations,
including other professional workers, the group to whom they are compared in
this study.
The practice of moonlighting should he viewed in the broader context of
how artists fare in the job market. Artists' job markets differ from those of
many other professional occupations in a variety of ways. Most of these differ-
ences lead to less attractive outcomes for artists.
Unlike those of many other professions, artists' job markets are relatively
open. It is more common for members of other professions to erect entry barri-
ers, such as minimum levels of education and training or licensing and
certification requirements, and then to create professional associations or licens-
ing boards to certify that these entry qualifications are met. Although this
process may ensure that a certain standard of quality and competency is met in
the occupation, it also ensures more limited entry, more stable employment, and
higher salaries for workers who qualify.
The labor market for artists is not structured this way. For most artist occu-
pations, minimum levels of education and certification requirements do not
exist. (These kinds of requirements do exist in the architect profession, which
more closely resembles several other non-artistic professions. They also exist for
college teachers of art, drama and music.) Although each artist profession is
associated with an average amount of formal education, individuals can declare
themselves to be artists with little or no formal training or work experience in
their art.
Other distinct characteristics of labor markets for artists are the lack of sta-
ble jobs and the lesser availability of full-time jobs. For example, performing
artists often do not work for the same employer for very long. Even those who
are capable of finding full-time work in their profession often need to move
from one gig to another, or from one acting job to another, in order to maintain
it. Performing artists who do have a stable source of employment nevertheless
may not have an opportunity to work full-time, year-round. Examples of this
96 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
are classical musicians and dancers working for small or regional orchestras and
companies. Job market conditions such as those cited ahove apply equally to
persons such as showgirls, rock musicians, and radio disk jockeys, whom we
often fail to realize are also memhers of these same occupations.
The job market for creative artists, such as authors and visual artists, is differ-
ent but yields many of the same outcomes. Here the typical member is more likely
to be self-employed, and thus less likely to be unemployed. Like performing artists,
however, creative artists may find that there is insufficient demand for their work
to earn a full-time living from their chosen occupation, and may report working
only part-time in their first job as well as holding a second job.
Job markets for college and university teachers of art, drama and music are
also different. In general, college teaching cannot be construed as a full-time
year-round occupation. Members of this profession, while having relatively sta-
ble jobs, often do not work summers, and do extra work during the academic
year, whether it is research, consulting, writing, or art. Again, there exists a
desire or need for second or third jobs.
Another perspective on the dynamics of many artist labor markets can be
found in the theory of winner-take-all markets. In the economics literature, this
concept was initially formalized by Rosen (1981), and popularized by Frank
and Cook ( 1995). As described by Frank and Cook, this theory describes win-
ner-take-all markets as characterized by "reward by relative performance" and
asserts that "(r)ewards tend to be concentrated in the hands of a few top per-
formers, with small differences in talent or effort often giving rise to enormous
differences in incomes" (p. 24). They also discuss the relationship of this con-
cept to job markets for artists:
In many other winner-take-all markets, by contrast, losing contest-
ants receive some modest payment. People in the arts, for instance,
often support themselves by moonlighting as waiters or taxi driv-
ers.... Such payments [to non-winners], however, do nothing to alter
the underlying tendency of winner-take-all markets to attract too
many contestants. Given the familiarity of the "starving artist" syn-
drome, it is easy to see that the losers in many winner-take-all
markets — failed actors, painters, writers, and musicians, to name a
few — do worse than they would have done in other careers (p. 1 10).
In other words, although a few talented (or lucky) artists earn large incomes
for their work, median artistic earnings are relatively low. This theory capital-
izes on the openness of artist job markets and blends this trait with the inherent
attractiveness of these occupations as offering a small chance to become
Conclusions and Policy Implications 97
wealth) and famous. It predicts ail outcome of constant oversupply, with many
workers becoming marginalized, by low salary or sporadic employment or
both. One could argue that this oversupply is exacerbated by the fact that some
artists see their profession as a calling, and are less likely to give up and pursue
a different occupation it they are unsuccessful than an underemployed account-
ant or restaurant manager.
How these unique aspects of artist occupations interact to affect labor mar-
ket outcomes in 1997 is summarized in Table 5.1. In this table several labor
marker indicators are presented for artists, other professionals, and all workers.
This table is the only one in this monograph that breaks down artist data to the
individual three-digit occupation level. This breakdown, though yielding less
statistically reliable results for individual artist occupations, is less problematic
for 1997, a year in which we can draw from, and combine, twelve monthly
reports on moonlighting and other labor market behavior.
Some of the information in this table has been discussed in earlier chapters,
such as the higher rates of moonlighting among artists, and the smaller number
of hours worked in primary jobs. In addition, it has already been noted that
artists' earnings are lower than the average in other professional occupations.
Other information not presented earlier reflects other longstanding trends in
these occupations. For example, the artist unemployment rate has averaged
about twice that of other professional workers for decades, and has remained
roughly equal to the unemployment rate in the labor force as a whole. Rates of
part-time jobholding by artists have traditionally been greater than among
other professions and among all workers.
In addition, this table enables one to see more clearly how these labor mar-
ket characteristics differentially reflect different work conditions in individual
artist occupations. The necessity to change jobs frequently in the performing
arts leads to time gaps between jobs, and hence to the highest unemployment
rates. Some of the highest moonlighting rates are found here; obviously second
jobs are often used to fill some of these gaps, as well as to supplement insuffi-
cient work as a performer in any given week. Creative artists, such as authors,
painters and sculptors, designers, and photographers, are often self-employed
and have a greater ability to control work times in their profession.
Nevertheless, they have part-time employment rates well above the average of
other professionals. College and university art, drama, and music teachers have
1. Note that some winner-take-all labor markets, such as those for lawyers and plastic surgeons, do not lead
to adverse financial outcomes for the "losers." In these cases, however, entry barriers limit the number of
participants.
98 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
stable jobs and low unemployment, but these jobs frequently are not full-time,
and second jobs are often taken to increase earnings. These second jobs, how-
ever, often are complementary to the primary job.
These numbers also show the "uniqueness" of architects among artist
professions — their job characteristics more closely resemble those of some non-
artistic professions, with low rates of unemployment, part-time employment and
moonlighting, and a longer workweek. Though not reported here, architects' earn-
ings also more closely resemble the earnings of other well-educated professionals.
Should artists' adverse job market outcomes be a matter of public concern?
And if so, what should be done? These questions are raised at a time of mini-
mal direct government support for artists in the United States. Even if the
likelihood of public support were greater, several aspects of artistic careers
make developing strategies to reduce artist moonlighting and unemployment a
difficult task.
One reason why it is politically difficult to design and implement programs
of labor market assistance for artists is that their education levels and earnings
are higher than those of the average worker. Although artists face unusual job
market stress, their employment difficulties are not of the same order of mag-
nitude as those of workers with little education or job skills, such as minority
teenagers or welfare mothers. In an era of scarce governmental resources, pro-
grams of job assistance to artists will have to stand in line behind programs of
support to more needy groups.
A second reason lies in the discussion of motives for moonlighting. Not all
motives for taking a second job imply job market duress. Although the most
often-cited reasons for taking second jobs involve limited or constrained pri-
mary job opportunities, other reasons were often cited. Among these were "I
enjoy the work," "I want to obtain a different experience," and "it comple-
ments my work." It is hard to justify public support to reduce moonlighting
rates among artists when these are among the reasons they give for the activity.
This is not to argue against government programs of financial support for
artists. There are valid reasons in favor of government support of artists; among
them are providing support for valuable work whose benefits may not be fully
reaped by the artist, and preserving our cultural heritage and diversity.
However, it should also be realized from the outset that programs of public sup-
port for artists are unlikely to significantly affect the job market outcomes
detailed above, for three reasons:
(1) The number of artists in the labor market continues to grow rapidly.
There are now roughly two million artists in the labor force. As noted, barriers
Conclusions and Policy Implications 99
to entry do not exist in most artist labor markers. When the economy gets bet-
ter, more people choose to pursue artistic careers. Subsidies to artists will make
recipients better off, but they will also stimulate additional entry into artist
labor markets. As a result, levels of unemployment, part-time and multiple job-
holding will thus change less in response to these subsidies.
(2) The numbers in Table 5.1 reflect the average of outcomes over practi-
tioners of "high" and "tine" art and practitioners of "other" art. To reduce
unemployment, dependence on part-time work and moonlighting among artists
(as defined by the broad occupational groups reported on by the NEA), it would
be necessary to provide support to artists across the board. This in turn would
require supporting a greater variety of artists than those traditionally viewed as
in the domain of government support.
(3) Finally, even when using of a more narrow definition of "artist" for policy
purposes, the fact remains that artists living in countries with far greater direct gov-
ernment support moonlight at roughly the same rate as American artists.
The evidence indicates that public support for artists, while justifiable for
other reasons, is not likely to reduce moonlighting rates, and is unlikely to
reduce unemployment and part-time jobholding rates as well. An encouraging
sign is that, in the tight labor market of the past several years, the differences in
these rates that have traditionally existed between artists' and other profession-
als have somewhat narrowed.
Because the labor market stresses facing artists continue to be a topic of inter-
est, this monograph concludes with a plea for better information in this area. The
decennial Census has never reported information about moonlighting. The Current
Population Survey reports on moonlighting behavior and on related information,
such as occupation and industry of the second job, but only in a given week, and
it does not provide a breakdown of earnings derived from multiple jobs. It is hoped
that Census personnel will become more responsive to these gaps in their informa-
tion collection. Otherwise, it may be necessary to increase support for special
surveys of artists, and especially for longitudinal surveys, in order to answer the
many remaining questions about artists as workers.
100
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
o
z
g
0^
03
O
3"
co
0"
c>_
0"
Tl
Tl
2
D
O
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
rr
O
D_
3'
CD.
— t
W
if)
CO
CO
5T
co
0'
- *
03
3,
CO
w
3"
O
O
CQ
^
03
T3
3"
"^
CO
03
3'
-1
co
co"
c
c
CO
03'
3
CO
o~
3
co
CO'
3
CO
03
3
O
CO
c
3"
CO
3"
O
CO
3
3
O
c
3
O
CO
O
O
co
- *
>
CO
CO
g
CD
i
CO
co
CD
T3
CO
CO
03
3
0^
CO
O
CO
CO
3
O^
3
D_
3"
3
C
3
03
- 1
CO
03
CO
O
c
co
■^
S
0_
-1
3»
7T
O
^
-^
ro
CO
D.
03
—i.
ro
CD
03
_L
_l
ro
CO
_L
CD
_l
_L
_^
"CD
b
Ol
-1
ro
CO
CO
O)
CO
CO
*■
•<]
03
Ol
*0
— ».
— *
03
-J
O
«s]
— h
*>•
CJ1
■^
— t
IO
— 1
ro
■p»
O"
3
0)
o_
CO
c
Q.
3
O
3
3
TJ
?
O
3
3
3
01
O
*>.
co
CO
CO
^
10
— '
-P>-
4>.
— »
-p>.
x>
^^
CO
o>
CO
b
CD
^
'-L
co
*>•
*>.
*.
Ul
CD
b>
03
*<
^^
Q.
C/3
O
0)
— *
<^
55'
3
cr
03
co
o7
cr
-1
8.
3
CO
ro
ro
ro
-^
ro
en
ro
CO
to
CD
03
ro
CO
ro
p
Ol
CJ1
CJ1
■^
Ol
00
0*
Er
05
co
CD
bo
ro
^
co
KD
00
- 1
CO
bi
b
- 1
<
>
— :
03
3
Q.
OJ
oT
5T
cr
0)
-s
^•*
^A.
ro
_±
Mt
—L
O
CD
CO
^j
-<j
03
CO
ro
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
03
cr
03
CO
01
.&.
00
■vj
CO
CO
ro
ro
co
03
co
0_
w
w
3
0)
0'
c
co
Er
O
O
3
co
II
T3
03
3.
00
CO
CO
CO
10
CO
ro
00
-fc.
CO
*>.
CO
■&.
CO
03
CO
^0
co
CJ1
CO
CD
-0
-&.
ro
CO
00
p
CO
03
01
b
00
NO
b
—A
co
b
CJ1
— *
bo
ro
— k
*.
c
3
03
A
3
3
w
TJ
_♦,
O
-*
><
3
3
—*
3
3"
-1
03
-0
Ol
CO
4*.
■*»•
ro
p
^
CO
03
ji.
^
CO
.&■
co
CD
V)
CD
(2)
*.
- *
*>
01
— '
^
CO
~ *
en
fo
CO
*>.
v]
3
O
c_
"0
i-^-
CO
■0
3 I
O 3
S"
^^
c
3
?i
3
3
m
3
O 0)
"S 3.
3 •
3 3
^
TO
0)
If
O- ^
5' T3
«3
03 O
sr cr
1 x
-> o
in
7?
O
CT
O
7?
Q.
^ I
-> O
u>
1 <
•• o
CD
m
3
"D
O
♦<
3
o
3
•^ H
c J
w> en
>
CO
5T
_ — 3
CO
CO
o
CT
ro
7?
a
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdukadir, G. (1992) Liquidity Constraints .is a Cause of Moonlighting.
Applied Economics, 24, 1307-1310.
Alper, N. and Galligan, A. (1999) Recession to Renaissance: A Comparison of
Rhode Island Artists, 1981 and 1997. Journal of Arts Management,
Lair and Society.
and Morlock, M. (1982) Moonlighting Husbands or Working Wives:
An Economic Analysis, journal of Family Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, June,
181-198.
and Wassail, G. ( 1996) The Write Stuff: Employment and Earnings of
Authors 1970-1990, in Artists in the Work Eorce: Employment and
Earnings, 1970-1990, NEA, Research Report #37, 13-58.
, et al (1996J Artists in the Work Force: Employment and Earnings,
1 970-/ 990, National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division
Report #37.
Altonji, J. G., and Paxson, C. H. (1988) Labor Supply Preferences, Hours
Constraints and Hours-Wage Tradeoffs. Journal of Labor Economics 6,
254-76.
Amirault, T. (1997) Characteristics of Multiple Jobholders, 1995. Monthly
Labor Review, March, 9-15.
Bardez, C. and Throsby, D. (1997) Similarity and Difference: Craftspeople and
Visual Artists in Australia. Redfern, Australia: Australia Council for the
Arts.
Bradley, I. (nd) Profiles of Visual Artists in Canada, 1978. Ottawa: Research
and Statistics Directorate, Arts and Culture Sector, Department of
Communications.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, (various years) Multiple Jobholders in May.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Canada Council for the Arts. (No date) Fortieth Annual Report and
Supplement: 1996-1997 [Online]. Available:
www.canadacouncil.ca/ar40/report.htm [August 18, 1999].
Conway, K. S., and Kimmel, J. (1992) Male Labor Supply Estimates and the
Decision to Moonlight. Upjohn Institute Working Paper 92-09.
102 ' More Than Once in a Blue Moon
_. (1995) Who Moonlights and Why? Evidence from the SIPP. Upjohn
Institute Working Paper 95^0.
Frank, R. H., and Cook, P. J. (1995) The Winner-Take All Society. New York:
The Free Press.
Harrison, B. (1982) Canadian Freelance Writers: Characteristics and Issues.
Ottawa: Research and Statistics Directorate, Arts and Culture Sector,
Department of Communications.
Heikkinen, M. (1998) A Borderline Case: Finnish Artist Policy and the Field of
Applied Graphics, in Economic of Artists and Arts Policy: Selection of
Papers, ed. M. Heikkinen and T. Koskinen, Helsinki: The Arts Council
of Finland, 111-128.
. (1999) Economic and Non-Economic Uses of Public Support for
Artists. In proceedings of Artists' Career Development and Artists'
Labour Markets, Support and Policies for Artists: An International
Symposium on Cultural Economics in Tokyo, 28-30 May 1999, Tokyo:
ACEI and Japan Association for Cultural Economics.
Highfill, J. K., Felder, J. and Sattler, E. L. (1995) Multiple Worker Households
and Multiple Job Holding: Rigid Vs. Flexible Hours. The American
Economist 39, 40-47.
Jeffri, J., ed. (1989) Information on Artists: Cape Cod. New York: Columbia
University, Research Center for Arts and Culture.
Karhunen, P. (1998) The Labour Market Situation of Graduated Artists. In
Economic of Artists and Arts Policy: Selection of Papers, ed. M.
Heikkinen and T. Koskinen, Helsinki: The Arts Council of Finland.
. (1998) A Portrait of a Woman as an Artist-Some Research Results
Concerning the Career Paths of Female Artists. Paper presented at the
10th International Conference on Cultural Economics, Barcelona, June
14-17.
Katz, J. (1996) Occupational Divide, Regional Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston, Spring.
Kay, A., and Butcher, S. (1996) Employment and Earnings of Performing
Artists, 1970-1990. In Alper, et al., Artists in the Work Force:
Employment and Earnings, 1970-1990.
Kingston, P. and Cole. J. (1986) The Wages of Writing: Per Word, Per Piece, or
Perhaps. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bibliography 103
Krishnan, P. il L)c) 0) The Economics of Moonlighting: A Double Self-Selection
Model. The Review of Economics and Statistics 72, 361-367.
National Endowment for the Arrs. (1^98) 1997 Annual Report |Online|.
\\ ailable: www.arts.endow.gov/learn/97Annual/First.html 1 1 999,
August 16|.
. (nd) National Endowment for the Arts 1965-199S: A Brief
Chronology of Federal Involvement in the Arts. Washington, DC:
National Endowment for the Arts.
Netzer, D., and Parker, E. (1993) Dancemakers, National Endowment for the
Arts, Research Division Report #28.
O'Brien, J. ( 1998) Professional Status as a Means of Improving Visual Artists'
Incomes. In Economic of Artists and Arts Policy: Selection of Papers,
ed. M. Heikkinen and T. Koskinen, Helsinki: The Arts Council of
Finland.
Paxson, C. H., and Sicherman, N. (1996) The Dynamics of Dual Job Holding
and Job Mobility. Journal of Labor Economics 14, 357-393.
Perlman, R. (1966) Observations on Overtime and Moonlighting. Southern
Economic Journal, 33, 237-244.
Poot, T. and van Puffelen, F. (1999) Measuring the Income of Visual Artists in
the Netherlands with the Aid of Panel Surveys. In proceedings of Artists'
Career Development and Artists' Labour Markets, Support and Policies
for Artists: An International Symposium on Cultural Economics in
Tokyo, 28-30 May 1999.
Rengers, M. (1998) Visual Artists in the Netherlands: Civil Servants, Self-
employed or Both? In Economic of Artists and Arts Policy: Selection of
Papers, ed. M. Heikkinen and T. Koskinen, Helsinki: The Arts Council
of Finland.
Rosen, S. (1981) The Economics of Superstars. American Economic Review 71,
845-58.
Ruttenberg, Friedman, Kilgallon &c Associates. (1981) Working and Not
Working in the Performing Arts: A Survey of Employment,
Underemployment and Unemployment Among Performing Artists in
1980. Washington, DC: Labor Institute for Human Resources
Development.
Schuster, J. (1985) Supporting the Arts: An International Comparative Study.
Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
104 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Shisko, R. and Rostker, B. (1976) The Economics of Multiple Joh Holding.
American Economic Review, 66, 298-308.
Stinson, J. F. (1987) Moonlighting: A Key to Differences in Measuring
Employment Growth. Monthly Labor Review, Fehruary, 30-31.
. (1990) Multiple Johholding Up Sharply in the 1980's. Monthly Labor
Review, July 1990,3-10.
. (1997) New Data on Multiple Johholding Availahle from the CPS.
Monthly Labor Review, March, 3-8.
Throsby, D. (1994) The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of
Cultural Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, March, 1-29.
Throsby, D. and Thompson, B. (1994) But What Do You Do For a Living? A
New Economic Study of Australian Artists. Redfern, Australia:
Australia Council for the Arts.
. (1 995) The Artist at Work: Some Further Results from the 1 988 Survey
of Individual Artists. Redfern, Australia: Australia Council for the Arts.
Towse, R. (1996) The Economics of Artists' Labour Markets. London: Arts
Council of England, ACE Research Report No. 3.
Wassail, G., and Alper, N., (1999) Employment and Earnings of American
Artists: 1940-1990, unpublished manuscript.
. (1985) "Occupational Characteristics of Artists: A Statistical Analysis."
Journal of Cultural Economics, 9, 13-34.
Wassail, G., Alper. N., and Davison, R. (1983) Art Work: Artists in the New
England Labor Market, Cambridge, MA: New England Foundation for
the Arts.
APPENDIX
106
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
o
3"
ST
2
o
c
«-»■
f+
t/>
T3
ID
3
a
(»
O
o
-1
D
cr
0)
<d
T
r4-
CO
3
o
Q.
>
1
CO
to
3
-t.
(/>
O"
73
•<
<-•■
O
fl>
to
3
Q.
to
Appendix
107
Percent
vi
O
o
vj
o
VI
Vj
O
Vj
u
vj
*0
vj
vJ
vj
00
O
vj
O
00
O
00
CD
s0
O
s0
O
vj
TJ
c
(D
I-*
-T
T3
O
3
o
cx
3"
o
3"
0)
3.
CX
o
>
«<
Q.
CO
CD
3
(£)
ro
3
a
33
(!)
l-H
■^
(D
108
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
O
CO
en
*0
•vj
CD
3
00
o
CD
in
CO
>0
o
-u
sO
o
-J
<
C
to
>-*■
c
09
•o
>
CD
O
a- c
3"
3"
11)
3-
</l
o
>
<
Q.
1
CO
OCQ
CO
~1
71
Q.
0)
1-4-
(D
(V
-t
(A
Appendix
109
Percent
O
o
CO
o
-si
*0
•vj
CO
CO
O
CD
CD
S3
S3
SO
U1
O
•a
110
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
Appendix
m
Percent
o
CaJ
-■J
-sj
-o
CD
-J
CD
o
CD
CD
>0
-I*
o
en
•43
O
-•J
112
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Perceat
CD
CO
o
CD
CO
O
-O
O
01
■
■
o
?
— »
3-
Appendix
113
vj
o
NO
-J
-sJ
CD
o
CO
o
<1
CD
Ul
Ul
-o
NO
o
114 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Perceat
on
l\2
o
O
O
o
■vi
*0
>0
-u
,ii :t;n;n^ n»m^ii
t»;Mm»Mmm.mmrr
»l||«i;|i|;|i!ji»Mii8t»tiiiiiiiiiiinni
-* ^liiiiiniiim i urn
en
-°0
'•0
■sj
CO
o
O
CO
O
CO
01
CD
o
o
-U
•43
o
o
o
o
ngiinnmrnininnsmimirrm
t:ii;n;H!U!n!Hiiiiiiim!i
AMU Ml.
'•; ■■"■■■■■■■■"■
~- ■ ~- ■ •■
13
I ' i ' i t ' Mi rtt »» » n < f i n i ' » » ' n t i>"j < » n t < i v <
•-;-, • • ■ • ■]■■■■ !••-'.■•
nmmmmmnwnnin:
h ; ! s i : s ; ; a ; ; s ; ; s : ^
T
5
t{l^seBsaE;tBiiii??^sits?;i?1
*
_j , ; . J
mmiiiiiiijiiiiHiimmTi
iiutun.uuim u.i ui mutu ,
»nn'm[!»innii ! !i i
■■■■■ ■■■-■■;■ i
:;s|is;! s ^n.i!s;;iii , s; !s : ii |
■
5"
wmnwimwummunmrnn
±
tin i ; » ii » « i » i mi ; » i ; i i i » i* ittti
j — V. „'■,', „'■,'-, „•■; — -, : — i. . .. ,. N . ■ .J
h
lN - ^^ *■ '- XN - - XN - ~X\. ..XV --W ^-- ---.Vv Wi
V g g V J 8 M ! V J J !■ J ^
5
- ■ v ■■ ■ V "TT "T
l-i..,..,. ■ ., *\ - * . -1
Mnitlltl
§ ' .' ' s\vy,vy,' v,' .'■y.'-.M
n ■ □ □ d □
O on ■<*■ U) ro — -
oi 0> o t> o o
+ l> Ul i Ul K)
on on on on on
o
3"
2
•-►
r
n>
o
f¥-
>-*■
TJ
in
0)
3
Q.
D
O
3"
O
3
Z.
3
<t>
o
>
Ul
Q.
1
co
3
3
(Q
CD
JO
0)
«<
(D
Co
>
CO
a>
Appendix 115
to
O
Percent
U
o
o
o
--4
O
-sj
to
CO
iiSiiliil
i >,s;u;s:i8,5i?,s;:,;;r,;;i,ii I.'-;; ;.i.;y z3
7i!inui»tiin'm»»
E:::i:s::i::is:i::::::::::::r:q
?
-r — "
T" '
» - . . . . . ■
'"l'l!.H'.»'»'l
gmmnnimmm
in
o
n m a □ n n
o tfl -^ U) M -•
ui O £h (J' Q 1 - 0*
+ 6» in -fc» Ui hj
in ui in in ui
C
|
i <d ^.
; 3, <t>
> o ,_ v
!! 3 O »
I CT 9: w
f -< =» ^
{ > CQ °
* <£ so
»-»■
Q
V)
116 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
O
M
(Jl
o
Ln
O
O
-si
CO
SO
4*
-o
•■J
Ln
SO
S?
vj
CO
CO
o
CO
00
•o
so
SO
4-
SO
o
Ln
so
<'
o
SO
SO
Exnxmxznzx:
nsMmim^ nintmimm
iM»i»»<il,limnliHim
±
3 T
izngiipiiiixj ;
nnimi,
i '
i niUirHi'in'i'nniiiiinjiii
W
M,s?;.nj,{nnnrnT
EEE
HMn<iH{>ynrr
¥
nzssp
m~
i.v-. .I-.-. .. . .1 ,
i^nft|f>.jfPj\ i
smmmmmdliuEnn
rr
i;,;iiiiiiiuii;iiiji;i^u;i
, i I
liUHl,
a '
a.
iM-wJi-WjJWW?Mi»
»,U£axuua» j » n n
»,U,»,U,UH,Umijmil
?iuunv>trti ,,, J
^
U3
'
szs
pnnm
\-..\V.:.V-.\1
* ■
T 1. 1 -■ —
nn
II
o
4*
U1
D ■ D D D a
Ih U1 ^ U U -•
Ln O 0"> 0» O- D"*
"** 6> ui -U 6j ro
Ln Ln en tn Ln
Lf
C
< 3
in
■D
c
0)
<T>
O
^~
^_
3"
>
o
0)
T
3-
en
o
>
3
a
1
CO
tr
3
«<
(O
_l
>
to
77
A
<-*
Percent
Appendix 117
O
O
O
Ul
O
o
SO
o
S3
S3
CO
S3
-u
S3
ui
S3
■sJ
S3
S3
CO
S3
-J
SO
o
CD
o
S3
CD
Ul
s?
ca
s3
s3
S3
S3
S3
4*
O
S3
Ul
S3
S3
-O
S3
^4
mrammp ji , ; .iz
:•.::■.;:'.:: ^ ;:: j : ^: :i:: 1 1 : : s 1 1 ;
:i;::i::;:ku
tps^
rr
UUUI
Hi?s;?iiiSi;?,-::;:i-:x]
iui:u;js;n!;i!f
nun;."/.;
ra
, i_
innmm rrr
,i
:is:i;!:;s; 1 ss!ianii;s3
ccmmmmnn
SSS
IU!»!l,!!l,a
U!U!!,i!U,il,»i :, ,:i
T
;m : z : :m rrrzm
X
cmnrrmmmg 1 1 : cgamanmr
j
eagmeaaagrTnacc
i$iiji j ' •' < j j / j ' ! Eg I ttmrmntpmtm
=2
H.UUIU»Ut.Ui; - -1 i :-■ -1 ; U I, Ul
J_i_
'
waacatatmbBaa m «*,'.«. w < > m > ? ; t « ; > m i
■rarfirn rrvri mmm "»'»M
_i_
immmm>n!i>t»KiMinn
?
ninnimirti '
B
■
D
D
a
□
CT<
cn
*
L'J
ro
_,
Ul
0>
o
Ch
D»
CN
+
*.
Ul
-U
Li
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
c c
I OE
I 5^.
1 5 a o
I ■ 5r =T
* 3- 3" r
I CT Q; CO
I > 50
j CD 0>
3 i
,,.■,. JLvw,
118
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
o
-si
vj
VJ
<l
vj
CD
"0
vj
00
«0
CO
<l
O
-43
■
D
□
B
a
rn
o
ID
m
3
ST
w
5'
2"
3'
B
—1
IS
in
3
in
3
ft
IX
n
^
ill
^*
Appendix
119
Percent
■o
^j
*0
-sJ
CD
NO
S3
CO
O
CO
en
CD
<>
llllllftll
■
D
D
■
a
IP
in
1
a'
a
m
3
S 1
B
cr
V
"S
D'
HJ
in
3
3
W
M
(D
iH
ID
r*
00000"
120
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Perce Bt
o
-u
CO
00
o
CD
CO
O
O
O
■
Q
D
■
□
B 1
in
3'
O
m
3
ff
hi
S"
I
H
^
&•
<fi)
in
3
3
in
3
n
1
3
l*
ID
•-*■
J^WWVWWWWVW^AA*AVi«ffArt^V^W^^^^^WA*AWAW**AW^A'*WWAM**»A^«^*A"**AWAW*A*A«
7)
re
i
M
O
■
«r -
If
w <& .
cr
o
Q.
5"
(Q
o
3"
Q>
a-
>
CO
Appendix
121
Percent
-sJ
MJ
SJ
CD
■vj
NO
CO
O
CO
CO
*0
122
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
o
-*4
o
XJ
4i
XJ
O
CD
XJ
iniiiui rtm
o
-4-
ro
OJ
-^
en
O-
XJ
m
»0
O
o
o
O
O
O
o
o
mill ii i in
ZJ
miiniiiiurm
mnmni
ittiitinnfTTm
am
* i MM iiii n i r t r i n
iiiitiiiii iii'inii "miffl ;
3
MmmtjmmMimminimmmwf»mim|tmnmmmm
>
O
o
o
o
c
0*
■D
to
o
U)
O
I-*
o
3"
tfl
3
Q)
Q)
r>
3.
3 -K
O CD
>
1
CO
0)
o
^
M
O
XJ
3
3
a
<D
L>
"i
O
(A
CX
1
D
a
■
□
1
1
1
o
zr
at
CD
ur
>
3.
01
-a
1
—
1
■
1
I
1
1
1
1
Q
nr
-i
to
CO
5
s
H
R
3"
W^*^AAVA>»A*AA'^VW*A^VVVVvGvVWYWA^W^^^^^V^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^V^^JV^^W*An^^^AAAW■V■SS■^^AW*A^^•^AA'.^A^■A^At■^^
wwwhwvwmim4awmw.v
>-*AVWWAW .
Appendix
123
Percent
rsj
O
to
O
O
o
o
OD
o
o
o
o
o
o
-sJ
<o
•>vl
KJ
so
-sj
to
1*
■vj
m
so
-sj
sg
sO
-vj
CO
o
<)
sO
CO
o
o
CO
o
CO
sO
<1
sO
sO
Ul
sO
sO
o-<
sO
s^J
nn
IHIHIiHl
uimumiuHijmmll
■ i i ;; i ; i . , ,. ;Tr7T"!':3
— I I
nnnnnnxnnnL
imimwuiniuVim
nisni ■
nxmninixn ,
I i
H ; i i ; : i i ■ ; ; i ; i ;, ; ■ i ; : ; m
TTT1
nuimni
3 '
f iiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
D
D
■
D
o
LO
>
-o
Hi
3-
CI
d.
n
ii
r
ID
— »
—i
en
H
"J
R
o
o
o
c
<D if
o o -*
»8£
3
Q.
O
124
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
o
'■0
■si
■vj
'•0
-u
U1
O
-■J
-J
CO
CD
o
o
CD
en
CD
o
o
■u
SO
-o
mminm8im??mm8}mmn|nmmj
o
O
Co
O
o
en
O
■vj
O
CD
O
o
o
o
SiiiiiHil
-r
1
""'""I
nmmlmimn'imifTTfTl
nnnmnnnii;
mmmmimr
1
iiimni
iiiiiiiijiiimiiiniiim [
,"j niiiiiinitiiHi i
3
nmmhurrm ',
mi it ti in
J
■ ~ ^i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini
i '
iiiiiiiifiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini
itfiiiiiiiniiitiiifiiiiiit
1 1 ii 1 1 ii i ii 1 1 in i it i ii 1 1 it i
iiiittitiniiiitiitii
D
a
■
a
o
in
Hi
>
3"
&
9,
n
2
iir
ID
-i
^
ui
-1
IT)
2
T
o
c
T3
S: :?. O
W O 3"
C 3 0)
> - >
IS?*
5T o to
a.
o
Appendix
125
Percent
O
O
O
S3
O
•sJ
sQ
CO
•vj
-U
sQ
*0
NO
CD
M3
S3
O
CD
o
sD
CD
Ol
S3
CD
-C
-o
o
VJ
mm
'M8t»MMl»l
m.
nnnnnnii
n '
j
mnnmn i :
nnnnm
mmmni
lHhl
O
3
o
o
o
c
d&o
■7, o **
>; ■* >
II s
Q.
O
D
D
■
D
n
LA
>
"D
lb
ST
3
d.
n
s
IF
ID
—1
-1
vn
H
n>
fi
?
n
126
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
o
vj
o
NO
■si
nO
-si
r\j
<>
■si
LU
<l
■si
nO
•si
Ul
nO
VI
0-
-0
■si
•si
<>
■si
00
nO
--J
*0
nO
OD
o
-0
OD
Ul
sO
OD
O
nO
<l
-0.
o
o
Wl
NO
o
o
NO
•si
>
— ■ o
<p o
2 ° o
n* ** ~
(/) O 0)
s jpS
5.1 >
DO f*
w Q. -»•
co " «
d o
M
□
■
D
-o
LT>
O
-1
(Li
§
&
s
(!■
ro
3
3
"D
3
5
3
8.
•-»
Appendix
127
o
■sj
■vj
NO
-J
O
s5
CO
-sj
GO
O
CD
GO
■«0
O
-vJ
a>
o
I*?
o
D
■
D
-o
Lfl
IT)
n
9
Si
h
m
<L>
B
"D
3
5
t
=!
a.
p*
128
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
o
o
o
o
o
en
O
o
o
CD
<>
O
O
*
£
o
o
O
<° O
C O Q)
o) ■* a,
~ <A w
> CD >
a 3 n>
U> Q. CO
O
CX
□
■
□
-a
1/1
n
■^
?
CD
9
h
2
(0
CO
3
3
1
3
8.
Appendix
129
o
<>
-■J
«o
■vj
so
sO
<i
Ul
sO
O
00
so
so
CD
o
NO
CD
U1
<1
CD
sO
sO
sO
'O
O
<J1
o
sO
sO
sO
o
o
6?
o
TO Q
(1) -"i
So f°
cr 2: -^
o
C7
□
■
D
-a
Ln
l?i
0)
5
Si
dj
ns
re
3
TS
3
2
£
si
•-•■
130
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
■o
'•0
■si
CO
"■J
o
■sJ
■«0
oo
O
o
O
O
CD
00
o
-4-
t .■
o
CaJ
o
o
o
0>
o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SSEgam^^^^m^^m^^^^BH5yBB5SSSB5S
TVHMnmmnmmsmsinmsErrm
isssaasss^^^aB^^B^^^a^^B^^faBsaaaBBsa
^\\v\\\\\\\\\\Vs\^^^
!iiiiJSJfinnnnnn(iiHH5isnjHiini
':■■■:::::.:.■ :5:rt : -:■ ■>:■>. .-:■■■ 5!!sffiffi*«ffi: ™ :*:*: ■:.. . ■:■ ■
\\V\\V\\\\\\\\V\\^^
^\v\\\v\vv\s\\\\v^^^
u
mmmmmmilm
^^\\V^\\\\ \\S\VS\VvVvl-
\\\\\VV\\\\\\\\^^^^^
m mm
kVVVVVk\V\.\^\\S,V\\\\\VJ
III If 1 1 III Nil If II III Mil If I till II II II
v\^\v\v\vv\vvvvv^vvv^^
A > i Si i i ■ •■
lllllllf llllllllllllllllllll
Svvv\v\v\vv\\va\^\\^^^
3
i iii iii mi mini mi in
^^^^^^^S^gjg^^S^^B^te^i^^l^KBSB '
~]
Minium
w^\vl\vvv\vvvv^vv^^^
lllftlfllllfllillfllllfltlllltlf
- [vvvvvvvvvvvvvv^Vvvvv^^^
•>0
-0
mniniiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
^vvvvvvvvvvvvv\^vvvv^^
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 tf I 1 II I till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5gB5BBB^^ j ^B^SSS5^gB^^^ B5^t^^
mmmintimimmmimi
v\VVV\\V\V\V\V\\V\VV\V\VVV l vV\\VVVJ
1
inn i mi iii mi limn mi iii mi mi mil
k\v\\\\v^\\v\\<vV\\\v\\vvs.v i
> —
§1
to B
Q) * 3-
u - (D •
!2. q. ^
to .
I*
□
□
a
■
□
-a
m
to
H
2
3,
3
I'D
Qj
111
ri
8)
-n
iff
&
«;
3
73
=?
01
— -
m
3
c
p-
Appendix
131
Percent
O
o
-fc.
o
o
o-.
o
NO
vl
o
VI
NO
■vl
>o
^0
•vl
vO
vj
*o
■vl
vl
vl
CD
■vl
o
CD
O
■O
CD
Ln
CD
sO
'O
-o
01
'O
o
«o
>o
vj
ffliiiiinnliiniifTTn '
t :
.\.\VWVs\\s\\n7^ -
—
i
:,.:....:...:..i
^\\\\\\\\w y^w^^
b— - - ■ ■ J . : .. I
■\\\\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\V . \V .S.VA\.S\W^nT
3
T
v^^^^^vxVav^v.-n.v.vvav-.v^x-ti
IIIIIIIIIKIIIill
^VV^VVVVx^xvvixnn^xnx^^
■\\V,\\\V\\\\\\\\V\WvS.V^1
rr n .
Z3
\\\m^\\\\\\^\\\\\\\\\\\^\\\i
=
^
i'liliiiiliil
3
»
v\V\VAVAV^Vs\^^^
3 ,
^\^^^^^x^^^^^^^^^^^^^v-A.^^^.^^ ^
lllf lllllllll IKIIIll
N.s\VA\\\\\.V- f \V-A\\\1
frVVVVVVa\lVVWVV^^^^^
S ^ S \ \S \ SSS S SSVA\SS\\SSS\^SS\\S,S\v,1
3
ii8g8i88iiiii?»S8S8nn
A\V\VV^VV-A\\^\V-AV-ASW,V1
AV-A\%N%\V,Y>~--n^^^^^
5S^S^S55^gS^Sg5S^BSgBSSS5S5a
UlHiUiiU
,\VA\.M
WAV^XV^AVWs^^^
□
D
D
■
□
T>
m
Ln
H
2
0,
3
71
ttf
1
Qj
Si
-n
&
«j
3
30
=1
rs -
8
m
3
-o
=
a
c
u>
5 o
— T
o &>
— *
=4 a.
— T
(/) >
3
£ a
n
O CO
in
w
a*
^
o
CT
132
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Perce at
-sj
O
>0
SO
•sj
CO
■xl
4>
o
4)
--J
-0
CD
■vl
O
O
4i
O
o
o
a
o
CD
O
o
fmmhininii>innmh»niinrtninTTrtni
iimiiiiiiiiimm
ml
iiiiiiii
imn
Ji iiU )
^^^^NXXV>\XX\VXVXN<V\XXX^XVV<VX^.VX^.VX^Jv\\--\\^
^\v\v\\\ys\\\\\v^^^
sVvwa^^vvvv^v^
iiimiif iiiiiiii
^^VXVVXVvdvvVVVV'vVVvV',\'.V\VVWWI
ffTfTTTTfTTTTTT
»iiiin!n» i!niimninimii>
:vinx\xxnx<vax\%xx^
□
D
D
E3
D
-c
m
en
H
£
0^
*-*
IT
I
<£~
Qi
s
-n
'&
<!
_J
30
=i
n
Si
m
3
-a
c
VA*wwvW9wnMM
I
3
a
c
- w
^5
O
3"
c o
Q)
Q> -^
3-
Sec
Art
>
CO
ond
sts
^
o
C7
Appendix
133
Percent
to
O
O
o
<J1
o
o
■vj
o
CD
o
■vj
o
VJ
•VJ
vj
vj
vj
en
vj
O
■vj
CD
VJ
-0
CO
O
CO
-O
CO
s5
O
O
-u
O
o
■vl
'>•:; :.\ ... : I. :....... .^ ,.\..\ ,-.\ .;,. : ;v.v.'.x :;» J
N\V\\VVV\\\xva\ .\\Vs\\xvsXv\\x\\x\vi^^^
^\\\vvv\v^vv\\\v^\<v\\v\\\\\\<^\v\\\\\v\v\^
.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^^
—rrr:
,^\^^v^■\^^^^AV^v^.^VA^;^^■v^v^.^^\^^^^^\^^Vv^^A^^x^^^^^v^v^
^^BS^^^BB^^^ SaBB8S^ g5SS5SS^BSSBaaBSpBS^85SgjgB EaaB^pB5S
vavav\s\\^v,^^^^
na
— T
3
S^S
\V\\U\V\\V\\\\\\\\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V0
.v^wwwv; ;■;■: :•:■: :■:-: : ^
^w
r^^m
sb
3
in:;;:;
i
3
nniinnsfTTTn
j
VOOOO^AXSXVvV.VOI
^W^VV^V^^^
3.
V.N^%XNX\XX\VS.\\WvVTC<l
\\\.\\\\\\\\\\W\\\\\\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1 l
3
mnnnni
3
Q.
C
05 O
m O w
■ (/) >
> d> T
10 W
I ^ g
STo. 00
o
IVA\\\V\\\<VAVAV^
^v\vv\v\\y^A\^^^^ ;
no.
^^\\V\\V\VV\V\VV\V^VV\V\VX^VAVJ
ks
\V\\V\V\<^AVAVVW^^^^
□
D
D
■
D
-a
m
VI
—1
5"
3
Si
1
-n
iff
J
3
73
=1
n
IE
3
m
3
134
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
CD
o
NO
sO
-u
-o
o
■-0
0)
0)
5 • o
B <Q K
2 >
°- 3-
CO
3
□
■
D
z
s
2
£
o
Uj
en
E
Appendix
135
Percent
O
CO
O
4*
o
o
o
o
S3
CO
-o
-0
ffg. |
</> O >
pa w
-I ^
3 3-.
□
■
□
"^
£
2
<£
o
IJt
E
136
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
CU
Q) "O
(A *
O
Jobh
tatus
3-
0)
a-
V) —■
>
CO
a (Q
CO
Arti
I Art
_. y)
«/l r+
r-f (/)
(/) ..
D
■
□
z
?
2
5
ft
LH
K
Appendix
137
Percent
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
0)
a-ff
S" °
■ o
2ft
<D (O
a >
g. K
0)
>
■
CO
CO
to
d m
□
z £
2
2 D
Qj
Ln
■n
ft.
138
More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
O
Ui
o
■t-
o
o
o
3
. t
■sj
o
"sj
■sj
-o
(JU
sO
-fc.
_
inu\uiuhiu\u\n\)Huii\u\Hitiu <)un\u\u)im
fftitiifti
i MIMSnijiiliM
itfiiftiftifiiiifiifiif
i i
■ i
i i
is }} w *}Mh/,>/M/MsJ,-s/.v/vs?/s}/;A
vs//s//j//?/ys/s/ , /f//'y/s/s
m
--J
sO
-sj
CO
sO
•sj
sO
sO
CO
O
sO
00
Ln
sO
00
sO
sCl
sO
>,y-v;,»,v,'\>;-ys ;/,'/;,•;;,>/ s\y v> y ". ■■■ ,, ' ■;
' ' /.' '■'-', /"'^
^WWfflb/ TTTjTTT*
lllllftlllllltllfltllllttllllll
1
lillltlliillilltlliiiliillfllll
/v^//////y////////////|«
□
D
■
□
(it
to
c
5
z
3
3"
ffi
zj-
I
7)
i
?!
w 2. >
o >
» 3-
t/» — •
Percent
Appendix I 139
O
on
Ul
O
CO
m
O
-t.
Ul
o
vf
T) zr *
2 ° >
1 40 I More Than Once in a Blue Moon
Percent
c
:*> 5
<o ar
6 ' J.O
g o >
9L9: W
«Q Oi
Appendix 141
O
>0
LI
■vj
CD
NO
CO
O
CD
in
■o
o
Ul
o
"J
a £■
g»n
' s O g
? o >
a>
«■+•
(A
*fe
NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT
FOR THE ARTS
National Endowment for the Arts
Seven Locks Press
Santa Ana, California
929765-85-0
5 1195
9 780929 765853